Right to Rent appeal hearing: What does the industry think?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

The Home Office’s legal battle to defend the Right to Rent policy, which was deemed as unlawful and discriminatory by the High Court, began on Wednesday 15 January, and ended after a course of three days. The policy has been a topic of controversy in the industry, and the outcome of this appeal will be anticipated by many.

Founder of Landlord Action, and Brand
Ambassador at Hamilton
Fraser, Paul Shamplina, recently hosted a
letting agent focus group at the Hamilton Fraser offices, where agents from
different areas were invited to debate about a variety of topics and discuss
the challenges that they face in the private rented sector. On the topic of
Right to Rent checks, most of the agents expressed the view that it is a
complex and time-consuming process for them that they would rather not have to
deal with.

One agent who manages a local firm
said that the costs of compliance are making it harder for smaller agencies to
stay afloat. Another agent said that he raised his fees to make up for the
costs of complying with government-enforced policies such as Right to Rent
checks.

In March last year, following a
judicial review proposed by the Joint
Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) and supported by Liberty and
the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the High Court ruled that the Right
to Rent policy is an unlawful scheme and breaches the European Convention on
Human Rights.

The Home Office was given an
opportunity to appeal the ruling, which was heard by three judges of the Court
of Appeal. The JCWI also participated in the hearing to fight against the Government’s
Right to Rent policy.

During the hearing, the JWCI’s
legal team argued that forcing landlords to carry out immigration checks leads
to racial discrimination in the housing market. Based on their research, the
JCWI argued that where prospective tenants are unable to provide a British
passport, landlords tend to rely on unfair and stereotypical characteristics of
“Britishness”, such as skin colour, names, and accents.

They suggested that this was an
expected and inevitable consequence of the Right to Rent scheme, and that the
Government should be held accountable for any discriminatory actions made by
landlords as a result.

Chai Patel, legal policy director
of the JCWI, commented: “Landlords
faced with the risk caused by complex immigration checks inevitably end up
discriminating against people without a British passport, especially ethnic
minorities. It must be scrapped so that everyone has a fair shot at
finding a flat, whatever the colour of their skin or their passport.”

The Home Office argued that the
scheme is intended to reduce illegal residence in the UK, and that any
discrimination caused by the scheme can be justified.

Paul Shamplina, commented: “I have
always voiced my disapproval of Right to Rent. The scheme is problematic and it
places a heavy burden on landlords because of the possibility of discriminating
against tenants.”

“We await the judge’s decision
from the appeal hearing as the result will undoubtedly have a significant
impact on our industry”.

The appeal case is now in the
hands of the judges for deliberation, and a ruling is expected to be heard
within the next few months. Be sure to check our news portal regularly,
and subscribe to our
newsletter list to stay up to date on the case.

To learn more about Right to Rent
checks, visit Hamilton
Fraser’s legislation guide.

©1999 – Present | Parkmatic Publications Ltd. All rights reserved | LandlordZONE® – Right to Rent appeal hearing: What does the industry think? | LandlordZONE.

View Full Article: Right to Rent appeal hearing: What does the industry think?

If you enjoyed this article please consider sharing it!