Our sectors

We treat all personal data in accordance with our privacy policy.
Show Site Navigation

Discrimination in accommodation; an affront to us all

Employment solicitor, Liana Wood, talks about the need to challenge the discriminatory practices carried out by large-scale landlords.

Handing over the key
Liana is an employment solicitor who works with partner Chris Benson. She works on on a range of discrimination and employment cases and multi-party equal pay cases in the civil courts and the employment tribunal. 
“The following are not acceptable:
·         No single mums or single fathers…
·         No battered wives….”

“No coloured people because of the curry smell at the end of the tenancy”
At first glance, you might think this is the kind of sign we would gawp at in a museum, while congratulating ourselves collectively about how much has changed in the UK since the 1960s. 
But you would be wrong. 
It was, in fact, written by Fergus Wilson in 2017 by way of an instruction to a letting agent responsible for letting out his properties in Kent (of which there are over 1000).   
Worryingly, Wilson does not seem to be a lone discriminator or a relic from a Britain of decades ago.  Indeed, during a BBC undercover investigation in 2013 one lettings manager was filmed saying “99% of my landlords don’t want Afro-Caribbeans”.  
Wilson, along with his wife, Judith Wilson, is worth around £100 million and seems to think that this entitles him to exclude people from renting his properties because of their race, amongst other ‘criteria’.
Just some of the other groups Wilson excludes from his properties include low income or zero hour workers, single adults and plumbers.
Is any of this this legal?
Let me be clear: where the exclusion criteria relates to race and sex, it is not only morally abhorrent; it is entirely unlawful.  
Under the Equality Act 2010, it’s unlawful to refuse to rent a property on the basis of the tenant’s race. Pretty cut and dried then.  
Further, the Equality Act 2010 prohibits the indirect discrimination as a result of a “protected characteristic”; of which sex is one.  ‘Battered wives’ (or other victims of domestic violence, which presumably Wilson would also exclude as tenants) are predominantly women as are single parents.  Under the Act, Wilson cannot refuse them accommodation on this basis unless he can objectively justify this decision.  I’m pretty sure he can’t.  
Some of the other exclusion criteria, i.e. no zero hour workers, may not be unlawful, but they are symptomatic of the problems associated with allowing the power of a property tycoon like Wilson to go entirely unchecked.   As a result of a desperate lack of affordable housing, the all-but-eradication of social housing and a lack of regulation of private sector rentals, tenants are becoming increasingly vulnerable.  It also seems that zero hour contracts and the ‘gig’ economy working model are not only disastrous for workers’ security but also for security in their homes; illustrated with perfection by Wilson’s exclusion of ‘zero hours’ workers. 
Further, when looked at as part of the bigger picture of available accommodation, Wilson’s blatant race and sex discrimination does not necessarily only deny people accommodation in respect of his properties but may be denying people a place to live altogether.
These discriminatory policies won’t change unless they are challenged; the power large-scale landlords hold is just too great.  And, ultimately, they are an affront to us all. 

Share this page: Print this page

Let us call you back at a convenient time

We treat all personal data in accordance with our privacy policy.

To discuss your case

    More information