I got rung up by a journalist from the BBC the other day (it happens sometimes) who said something along the lines of
We are doing a feature on discrimination and zero hours contracts and we wondered if this was something you could comment on?
At first I had no idea what he was talking about. Having been self employed for many years, I was happily unaware of the phenomena of zero hours employment contacts and I thought he was referring to some sort of tenancy agreement!
As a title for a tenancy agreement, zero hours seemed a bit self contradictory …
However once we had sorted that out, I could tell that I was not going to be able to help him. He obviously wanted me to say that discrimination against potential tenants on zero hours contracts was against the law.
But it isn’t.
Discrimination – the law
Landlords are of course subject to discrimination laws. These though are the standard discrimination laws that apply everywhere, such as:
- Sex and sexual orientation
- Religion
- Race
- Disability
- Etc
However a landlord must be able to have some freedom over who he accepts as a tenant. And the employment status of the tenant is a key issue.
Why a tenant’s employment is important
It is from his salary that a tenant will (in most cases) pay his rent. So if there is any issue regarding this, it is obviously something the landlord will, and indeed should, take into account.
Most landlords are not millionaires and will almost inevitably have expenses they have to pay in respect of the property.
The biggest will be their ‘buy to let’ mortgage repayments. However there will invariably be other expenses too, such as ground rent and service charges for flats, maintenance expenses, Council tax if it is an HMO, insurance etc.
So it is pretty dangerous to take in a tenant whose employment contract does not guarantee him any income as you could end up seriously out of pocket.
Particularly when you bear in mind that it takes up to six months or more to evict a tenant (for example for non payment of rent) and during all that time the landlord will still have to pay his expenses on the property.
I have known landlords lose thousands of pounds when tenants don’t pay rent. So when choosing a tenant their potential ability to pay their rent is crucial.
And yet …
I can see where the BBC man was coming from. But I don’t think it is the landlords they should demonise. It’s the employers.
But I don’t do employment law so that is an issue for someone else to write about!
A valid point Tessa.
This weekend the news was full of stories about one of the worst offenders Sports Direct, whose sole justification for the practice was that they were “Operating within the law”. So….morality doesnt feature in this then?
Presumably people working these contracts have to life with parents
Id put it down to checking the employment of a customer; in which will have 6 month payment agreement and right to reside in your asset – as due diligence and not discrimination.
I can see no valid reason why any of the following can effect how a tenant can pay “Sex and sexual orientation, Religion, Race”.
Whereas variable income; down to 0 hours can of course effect the financial stability of a tenant.
Not discrimination but good due diligence.
A lot of part time work (including zero hours) is done by partners of people in a good job to top up their income. Or someone that has a fixed hours contact working for someone else that takes them over the benefit levels.
(A lot, if I recall correctly over 30%, of nurses work part time on a fixed hour contract, but also are on the “bank” for additional shifts when it fits in with their life style.)
They are also often taken by immigrants that can’t get benefits, so have nothing to lose by taking a few zero hours contracts, then only turning up for the employers that provide the most hours.
However I have got a tenant on benefits that can’t find work, as a lot of companies first take people var an agent for a few weeks and many such postings have to be done before a company decides to take someone on full time. The problem he has is that he knows his benefits will be messed up for many weeks afterwards, so he is not willing to risk short term work unless it will give him at least 16hrs a week for at least a few months.
Personally I would like to see the minimal wage being 50% higher for any hours that are work where the hours are not part of a fixed hour’s contract.
Ps,
A lot of landlords will not take on a self employed people like Tessa without a very good employed home owning guarantor, due to the problem of enforcing CCJ against self employed people.
Make the eviction system work in days not months, and then landlords may be willing to take more risks with tenants that are not in a good fulltime long term job.
There is a Guardian housing comment column on zero hours contracts and tenancies last week that has as it’s picture graphic, the Wilsons of Ashford
http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/editors-blog/2014/nov/06/zero-hours-contracts-security-work-home
I think the labels being used are loaded. As a letting agent I used many viewers on what is now called zero hour contracts. If there was a viewing they did it and if they weren’t free they passed the opportunity. I prefer the word “qualified.” I used to be accused of discriminating against housing benefit claimants, and would say I was qualifying their ability to afford the property. We live in a world of semantics. I wrote about this on my blog as well at http://wp.me/p4ZeDJ-mm
Temporary contracts do cause problems for potential tenants.
We had a potential tenant apply for a room. She could prove she has been employed by a government department for 3 years but her employer stated it was a temporary contract renewable every 3 months.
When referencing companies are told temporary they automatically reject. We then take each case on its merits by giving the landlord as much information as we can. Then it is down to the landlord to decide what they would like us to do. Often we take guarantors but not everyone has a guarantor.
Its not just the BBC that doesn’t understand this isn’t discrimination;
Sarah Teather, Lib Dems –
“To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what (a) legislative and (b) other measures are in place to prevent private landlords discriminating against letting to tenants in receipt of housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.”
Yvette Cooper, Labour –
“Anti-discrimination legislation does not extend to the practice of refusing to let to benefit claimants”
Ironically, Sarah Teather’s ill thought out tenancies reform bill, will result in even more landlord ‘discrimination’ against benefit and zero hours tenants.
Oops! Forgot to include a link;
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo051207/text/51207w44.htm#51207w44.html_wqn5
(Just in case anyone thought I was making it up that someone so bloody ignorant of the PRS has the power to introduce legislation on the subject)
The use of a mild swear word does not improve or assist an argument.
The extract that you cited is about 10 years old, although it is still accurate today, but nonetheless it might be useful to cite a more modern reference when suggesting that a person does not have knowledge of the PRS. Merely because a person has an opposing view to yours does not necessarioy mean that they are ignorant of a particular subject.
The Bill that Sarah Teather has introduced has cross party support with the government minister stating that it supports it in principle. Your comment might suggest that none of the parties has an understanding of the PRS
Sorry I should have checked the link – it does say 2005.
Any more swearing will be deleted. Colin is right – this is not the place for it. I will go and put that in the comments policy now.
Ben – that means you too in your posts.
Boo. I like Ben’s down-to-earth, colourful language!
Of course it’s discrimination. Of the legal kind.
Parliamentary questions are often framed in the form put forward by Sarah Teather. It is a mechanism that all parties use to raise a subject, to which they know the answer, in order to get the expected answer from a Minister. That then enables the MP to frame a supplementary question that also means that they can suggest what they think would be a suitable policy.
Prime Minister’s Questions is also a rather odd archaic mechanism. The usual first question from a government back bench MP, is somehing like
‘Can the Prime Minister outline his activties today?. The set answer is something like ‘I will be meeting with senior ministers and then with deparymental chiefs and later with…….
And after this charade the real questions are asked!
Strange but true
I apologise unreservedly for the swearing.
How very encouraging to see that the incidence of swearing – even though ‘mild’ – was promptly and effectively addressed by Tessa, and that the person responsible was quick and willing to post an unreserved apology. In an age when the individual’s freedom to do almost anything (except express polite opinions in line with the tenets of their religious faith) is apparently protected by the HRA, this reasoned response to the possibility that offence may be caused for no good reason is refreshing. Just saying…….
PS. Probably should have written, ‘through a secondary appeal to the HRA’, since the HRA itself does not directly sanction offensive actions.