Court brands ‘no benefits’ rule by landlords illegal in disabled dad’s landmark case
A disabled dad suffered unfair discrimination when he was made homeless because a landlord did not accept people who receive state benefits.
The ‘no benefits’ rule meant Stephen Tyler was banned from viewing properties advertised by a Birmingham estate agent, purely on the grounds of receiving housing benefit.
Mr Tyler, 29, had been involved in a road accident in 2016. He was made homeless because of the estate agent’s “no benefits” rule.
Birmingham County Court ruled that the estate agent had breached the Equality Act because the rule disproportionally affects disabled people, who are more likely to need some support with paying their rent.
Judge Mary Stacey ruled that: “There is no doubt that there was a blanket policy that no one in receipt of housing benefit would be considered for the three properties. It put the claimant and other disabled people at a particular disadvantage when compared to others.
“To be told simply, because of his benefit status, that he could not apply for three properties which were perfectly located for his children’s school, his GP and health needs, and extended family support, […] would be distressing.
But “no benefits” discrimination is still going on (sometimes it is called “no DSS”, in reference to the former government department responsible for benefits.
This case was brought with help from homelessness charity Shelter, which has vowed to keep campaigning until the discrimination is completely stamped out.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
It doesn’t matter what the law says, people on benefits will always be discriminated against. The law made discrimination on the grounds of gender illegal years ago, and women STILL get paid less than men and passed over for promotion. Many companies would rather promote a tea boy than a woman. So what makes anyone think this law will work?
The excuse used round here is “it’s against the terms of the landlord’s mortgage to accept housing benefits”
This ruling is great, although should never have been needed in the first place.
How will it help, when letting agents and landlords who manage their properties themselves, lay the blame at the door of the mortgage lenders as the blanket policy for not accepting benefits?
Maybe this needs to go further and prevent lenders stipulating no benefit claimants in the T&Cs of buy to let mortgages? Or even Shelter look into it and see if it is actually a clause OR a way of discriminating without being as brazen as “no DSS”?
Of course, if Housing Benefit had been left in the care of local councils and paid directly to landlords instead of being rolled up into Universal Cruelty – thus becoming at risk of arbitrary sanctions – and paid to tenants once in a blue moon after an open ended delay, there would be less of an incentive for such discrimination.
I’m no fan of landlords but really you’d be mad to let to someone who could so easily spend the rent money on some other necessity or never receive the money at all on the whim of some DWP bureaucrat.