We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Tenancy Renewal Refusal Due to Children

2

Comments

  • unforeseen
    unforeseen Posts: 7,417 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Well could either of the two of who say it does please explain why/what causes the discrimination rather than than the stark statement with no explanation given, even though asked for?

    Until that happens I just see those statements as purely opinions of the pistes.
  • AnotherJoe
    AnotherJoe Posts: 19,622 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    unforeseen wrote: »
    Well could either of the two of who say it does please explain why/what causes the discrimination rather than than the stark statement with no explanation given, even though asked for?

    Until that happens I just see those statements as purely opinions of the pistes.

    i didn't say it was discriminatory if you are referring to my post. In any case it's all irrelevant since the LL doesn't need to give a reason to issue a notice to leave once the tenancy fixed period has ended which is the matter under discussion here.
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    G_M wrote: »
    I'm not sure the age of the child has any bearing on his or her legitimacy.........

    Equality act protects women for 26 after birth and is one of the categories covered in the renting section; in essence child aged 6 months.
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    unforeseen wrote: »
    Well could either of the two of who say it does please explain why/what causes the discrimination rather than than the stark statement with no explanation given, even though asked for?

    Until that happens I just see those statements as purely opinions of the pistes.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/17
  • bris
    bris Posts: 10,548 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Comms69 wrote: »
    And so how does this protect her from a S21 at the end of a tenancy?
  • davidmcn
    davidmcn Posts: 23,596 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    bris wrote: »
    And so how does this protect her from a S21 at the end of a tenancy?
    Because it would be treating her unfavourably in the provision of a service on the grounds of a protected characteristic. Of course, it would require there to be evidence that the reason for the decision was a child of that age.
  • G_M
    G_M Posts: 51,977 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Comms69 wrote: »
    Equality act protects women for 26 after birth and is one of the categories covered in the renting section; in essence child aged 6 months.
    I don't see the relevance of the Equality Act.


    If the child is born out of wedlock he/she is not legitimate irrespective of age (or gender, or disability, or ultimate sexual orientation.....)
  • unforeseen
    unforeseen Posts: 7,417 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 2 September 2018 at 12:18PM
    davidmcn wrote: »
    Because it would be treating her unfavourably in the provision of a service on the grounds of a protected characteristic. Of course, it would require there to be evidence that the reason for the decision was a child of that age.

    How can it be discriminatory since S21 doesn't need a reason? That is clutching at straws to try to stretch legislation to fit a no fault S21 into the equality act
  • bris
    bris Posts: 10,548 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    as above, it's not discrimination, it's a right. Scotland has taken away this right, England will follow sooner or later.
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    G_M wrote: »
    I don't see the relevance of the Equality Act.


    If the child is born out of wedlock he/she is not legitimate irrespective of age (or gender, or disability, or ultimate sexual orientation.....)

    Haha oh I see! I meant clauses not allowing children in the property would be legitimate!!
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.5K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.6K Life & Family
  • 259.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.