Question about discrimination and renting

This just in:

Sound of telephone ringing. ‘Hello? Mr. Caruso?’

Woody: “Yes, Woody here”

Dorothy: “Oh hello, Mr. Caruso, Dorothy here from Random Rentals. Regarding your investment property at 25 Yellow Brick Road. We have 2 applicants. One is a married couple, no kids, both professionals.”

“The other applicants are a mixed group. They follow an ancient cult and would like the right to sacrifice a goat in a different room each full moon. They are of mixed Islander and Arab descent, all are gay although one has an Alpaca as a common law wife. They seem nice. Which group would you like to have in your house?”

Woody: “Why the mixed group of course. I don’t discriminate, and IT’S THE LAW’’.

Dorothy: “Oh Woody, you truly are a saint. There is no-one on earth as righteous as you.”

Woody: “Awww, don’t mention it…..on second thoughts, DO mention it. Tell everyone. Call the Chronicle. Call Bono. Tell everyone how wonderful I am”

Dorothy: “Oh Woody, I think I’m in love with you”

BZZT. BZZT. Sound of alarm clock. Woody wakes up.

Thank you NoAddedMSG for the tips and bergamot I would be happy for you to have my contact details or have yours sent to me.

I haven’t rented for about 10 years. When I first rented you didn’t have open time for inspections, you just left a deposit with the property manager, took the keys, had a look and you had about 5 or 6 properties to look at. Then you just picked the one you liked.

In the real world discrimination exists. I can imagine a landlord wanting only people with the most money and the least amount of risk. I was just surprised at how the real estate agent actually gave that as the rejection reason.

Are any of the charities in the rental game like Salvos? I don’t think regular landlords are ever going to act as benevolent angels when they can be making hay while the sun shines in this tight rental market, but I am just looking for options to help my friend with.

Would have rented to the chinese girls and let them know about the neighbour. They fit all the renting criteria and references checked out.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

And I make the same offer to you – if you really believe you don’t have to justify yourself to anybody, be open and transparent about your discrimination to the relevant authorities and see what happens. Much easier to be a lawbreaking legend when nobody’s watching though, isn’t it, tough guy?

“Hello authorities, I just placed a dual income married couple in one of my properties. The other applicants were a single income couple earning barely enough to disqualify them from public housing. Both parties presented a satisfactory renting history, but I ultimately chose the dual income couple based on their financial position. Some hippies on the internet believe my actions are those of a criminal and have challenged me to report them to you.”

“Stop wasting our time.”

*click*

moneypenny2612 said :

At that time, I had been forced into unsatisfactory temporary accommodations while I tried to find another tenancy.

And so you should have!

You don’t get to decide which of your landlord’s specific requests are unreasonable and then simply ignore them.

….who just sounds like a ‘renter’

The inner north is just full of these people. An inability to bother saving for their own home fueled by a misguided sense of entitlement.

who just sounds like a ‘renter’

Bzzt – owner. I know – inconceivable that I could benefit from property but also feel the need to respect people’s legal rights – guess I’d make a lousy real estate agent. But thanks for playing anyway, and thanks for acting as an example supporting my argument. Your ability to make judgments about people you don’t know clearly sucks – as in, you were 100% wrong – so you’re better off going with evidence rather than relying on your gut, eh?

And I make the same offer to you – if you really believe you don’t have to justify yourself to anybody, be open and transparent about your discrimination to the relevant authorities and see what happens. Much easier to be a lawbreaking legend when nobody’s watching though, isn’t it, tough guy?

Wow. The complacency shown by some of Canberra’s landlords here is a bit surprising.

deejay said :

According to the ATO, we are not running a business, we’re investors. I’m pretty sure investors are allowed to manage their risks and as they are not in business providing goods and services to people, they probably can discriminate.

Er, no. While property investment might not be your day job, the fact that you are offering to rent your property to a member of public means that anti-discrimination laws apply to that transaction. The ACT Discrimination Act has a section dedicated to accommodation (section 21). The nub of the issue is that if you are going to place exclusionary conditions on who you rent to (eg, no singles, no disabled, no Asians (or Asians-only for that matter), etc) those conditions need to be reasonable. Capacity to pay the rent is usually a reasonable condition. Broad stereotyping, much like criminal profiling, is not reasonable. You have to consider each tenancy application received on its individual merits.

Special G said :

Were we descriminating against the Chinese girls or acting in their interest?

Assuming the Caucasian sisters were your top picks anyway, if they had said No to your offer, would you then have offered the place to the Chinese girls, including info about the neighbour trouble, or would you have jumped to third on your shortlist?

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Actually mate, I can pretty much damn well choose exactly who I don’t want living in my house.

Put your money where your mouth is, ‘mate’. Next time you rent out your place, give all of the applicants a list showing exactly where they were ranked and how you selected the successful tenant. Write that you discriminated against somebody because they were married, or single, or black, or whatever. Make sure to use the words you used above so that it’s clear you’re above the law.

Oh, that’s right. Bigots are also gutless cowards, so you won’t.

Call it discrimination if you like Woody although impossible to prove. Choosing a tenant is not like rolling a dice. As a landlord you choose the tenant you feel is most likely to: pay rent and look after your property.

Got nothing to do with what I like – it’s the law. Amazing that you sorry specimens would freely flaunt one law but would expect protection under others. And if you think your personal biases are a better indicator of somebody’s capacity and willingness to pay their rent – more so than, say, I dunno, references from their last landlords, like every potential tenant has to provide – you’re an idiot. If somebody has references and a proven history as a good tenant, everything else is just prejudiced guesswork on your part.

I’m sure you’ve never discriminated in your life, Woody, though that reduces the likelihood of you ever having been required to make a conscious personal choice involving people either

Or maybe my parents just raised me right.

Or maybe they didn’t, and I’m just a law-abiding citizen. What’s your excuse? Are you ignorant trash who thinks it’s OK to discriminate on delusional commercial grounds, or a criminal who thinks the law should apply to other people but not you? You can tick both boxes if you like.

Actually the easiest way is to just choose who you like. You’re under no obligation to justify your decision to anyone, especially people like WMC….who just sounds like a ‘renter’

According to the ATO, we are not running a business, we’re investors. I’m pretty sure investors are allowed to manage their risks and as they are not in business providing goods and services to people, they probably can discriminate.

I wouldn’t turn away a disabled person if serviceability wasn’t an issue. But nor do I feel a social obligation to take on less desirable tenants (economically or otherwise) as a private landlord. I pay tens of thousands in taxes every year for the government to look after those who can’t really afford private rental accommodation. (And yes, I have been very disadvantaged at other times in my life. I lived in horrible places and worked my way through government systems and never tried to rent a house I couldn’t afford).

Does the government do a good job of it? No, not always. But my response to that is to lobby for improvements, to comment on public enquiries, to vote with my one person’s vote. My response is not to threaten my own family’s future and our ability to be self-sufficient in retirement (and not an unnecessary drain on the government) by taking on inappropriate tenants.

Years ago we had some excellent tennants in our 2br unit. Paid the rent on time, looked after the place. When their second child was born, the maternal grandmother came over from China to help out. We were fine with all of this. Unfortunately the unit’s direct neighbour was not. She victimised and abused our tennants in racially motivated attacks. They eventually moved to get away from her, which really I can’t blame them!

Our delimma came when next looking for prospective tennants. We had a lot of interest, but when it came to offering the property to people our short list had on it 2 Caucasian sisters and 2 Chinese friends. Do we offer it to the Chinese girls and risk having then victimised and abused in the same way or do we offer it to the Caucasian girls? We ended up explaining the issues with the neighbour to the Caucasian girls before they signed the lease (so they were aware that there may be problems with the neighbour) and 3 and a half years on we still have happy tennants on a current lease.

Were we descriminating against the Chinese girls or acting in their interest?

As I said above – it is actually illegal to discriminate against tenants on race, or because they have children. It is perfectly legal to specify that you won’t have groups, pets or smokers.

But how could you ever prove it- unless they left the property empty rather than rent it to you. Which is not going to happen in the current rental market.

OP – get in touch with the Tenants Union http://www.tenantsact.org.au/.

Being white, straight, married, disabled or Muslim has no bearing on whether a tenant can pay the rent or not damage the property. If a landlord or property manager is sorting applications on that basis, then that would appear to be inappropriate discrimination.

As for children or pets, well yes the risk of damage increases. That said, the usual tenancy agreement makes clear that the tenant is responsible for making good any damage they do that goes beyond fair wear and tear. That’s what bond is for – and if that doesn’t cover the cost of fixing damage, the tenancy division of ACAT is still landlord friendly and you can get relief there. (Check out the decision list – plenty of landlords get what they are after).

An investment property is not a display home. If you expect the people living in it to ‘look but don’t touch’ you are in the wrong line of investment. Perhaps you should try art instead. Or just leave your hard-earned money in the bank. Otherwise, if you are too lazy to bother defending your investment through the ACAT when it has been damaged that is your problem.

If a person habitually kicks holes in the wall, kills your garden, or sh*ts on the carpets, your reference check should discover that.

Note though that if you get a negative reference you are supposed double check it’s accuracy with the applicant tenant – it is basic natural justice. I found out I was being black-balled by a previous landlord because I had installed a single picture hook in the wall after he had unreasonably refused permission (I had promised to fully repair at the end of the tenancy). The next landlord I had was the only one who bothered to get my side of the story – including the fact that I had actually repaired the damage (paint-matching & all). At that time, I had been forced into unsatisfactory temporary accommodations while I tried to find another tenancy.

And don’t forget to give a set of keys to the house.

So, WMC, just to clarify: It’s acceptable to have a preference on the doctor that examines you and your family, however it is unacceptable to have a preference on who you allow to rent your property?

Next time you go out to the pub, please hit on biggest ugliest bloke you can find, puking his guts out. I’d hate to think you would be ignorant trash with a closed mind to such people. Make sure to invite him back to your home, just to prove you’re better than us.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Got nothing to do with what I like – it’s the law.

Is it really?

Would you like to point out the particular piece of legislation which states that property owners cannot choose their own tenants?

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Put your money where your mouth is, ‘mate’. Next time you rent out your place …

… I’ll put whoever I damn well choose in it and there’s nothing whatsoever that you can do about it.

Actually mate, I can pretty much damn well choose exactly who I don’t want living in my house.

Put your money where your mouth is, ‘mate’. Next time you rent out your place, give all of the applicants a list showing exactly where they were ranked and how you selected the successful tenant. Write that you discriminated against somebody because they were married, or single, or black, or whatever. Make sure to use the words you used above so that it’s clear you’re above the law.

Oh, that’s right. Bigots are also gutless cowards, so you won’t.

Call it discrimination if you like Woody although impossible to prove. Choosing a tenant is not like rolling a dice. As a landlord you choose the tenant you feel is most likely to: pay rent and look after your property.

Got nothing to do with what I like – it’s the law. Amazing that you sorry specimens would freely flaunt one law but would expect protection under others. And if you think your personal biases are a better indicator of somebody’s capacity and willingness to pay their rent – more so than, say, I dunno, references from their last landlords, like every potential tenant has to provide – you’re an idiot. If somebody has references and a proven history as a good tenant, everything else is just prejudiced guesswork on your part.

I’m sure you’ve never discriminated in your life, Woody, though that reduces the likelihood of you ever having been required to make a conscious personal choice involving people either

Or maybe my parents just raised me right. Or maybe they didn’t, and I’m just a law-abiding citizen. What’s your excuse? Are you ignorant trash who thinks it’s OK to discriminate on delusional commercial grounds, or a criminal who thinks the law should apply to other people but not you? You can tick both boxes if you like.

el said :

Unfortunately real estate agents/”property managers” aren’t ethical.

The largest populations of clinically diagnosed psychopaths are found in…

Real estate.

And surprisingly – politics.

Not that this agent in particular is – just making the point that they’re generally arseholes.

BUT – its like rego fees. You’ll never change it – so why complain.

Call it discrimination if you like Woody although impossible to prove. Choosing a tenant is not like rolling a dice. As a landlord you choose the tenant you feel is most likely to: pay rent and look after your property.

Unfortunately real estate agents/”property managers” aren’t ethical.

i have an investment property and i never even hear from my property agent as to their selection process for the correct tenant – i pay them their commission so i don’t have to worry about such things.

but really, all anyone whether it’s agent or private landlord cares about when letting a property is ability of those undertaking the lease to pay the rent and also that they can be trusted to look after the property ie least damage.

discrimination brouhaha is for public housing. what’s with the socialist alliance trolling on RA at the moment???

The moral high ground is a lonely place, especially if you’ve never had your house trashed by another person. I’m sure you’ve never discriminated in your life, Woody, though that reduces the likelihood of you ever having been required to make a conscious personal choice involving people either.

There is a perfectly reasonable point to be made that landlords look for people with certain attributes associated with responsible tenancy, based on experience, in just the same way that motor insurance companies apply penalties for people under 25 years old because they make up the bulk of the claims.

No one has mentioned race, religion or sexual preference except for you.

I can understand a landlord preferring a white / straight / childless / Christian couple, especially if they’ve had a bad experience in the past with tenants. Generally white / straight / childless / Christian couples are considered to be financially reliable and tidy, and therefore preferable.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

For f*cks’ sake – it’s like I’m living in the Dark Ages.

Forget ethical – it’s illegal to discriminate against a person because of their relationship status or status as a carer. These are just two of the many “protected attributes” under the ACT Discrimination Act 1991. File a complaint with the ACT Human Rights Commission – the forms are on the front page of their website.

To the OP – ACT Discrimination Act 1991, republication Feb 2 section 21, subsection 1 paragraph C – “(c) by deferring the other person’s application for accommodation
or according to the other person a lower order of precedence in
any list of applicants for that accommodation”

You’ll have to PROVE your application was not successful due to the disability, best of luck.

My little brother has a disability and he is coming to live in Canberra in the next month or so… he might face the same problem.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Forget ethical – it’s illegal to discriminate against a person because of their relationship status or status as a carer.

Actually mate, I can pretty much damn well choose exactly who I don’t want living in my house.

It’s called minimising risk, and I’m quite sure your mindset will change when you own an asset of any signifigance.

It’s not considered discrimination when it comes to the rental market, the owner can filter applicants pretty much as they want.

Though, I’m guessing you have never been in the rental market to know the dual income reason is probably one of the most common requirements of landlords, as mentioned above, it lowers the risk that the tenants defaulting on the rent. It’s fairly similar to the landlords not wanting groups or people with pets, so the damage to properties and surrounds is minimised.

Postalgeek also raised a good point at what the legal obligations of the landlord may be for a tenant with a physical disability, it may also be worth looking at whether there are any as in the end that might be a bigger problem for them.

For f*cks’ sake – it’s like I’m living in the Dark Ages.

Forget ethical – it’s illegal to discriminate against a person because of their relationship status or status as a carer. These are just two of the many “protected attributes” under the ACT Discrimination Act 1991. File a complaint with the ACT Human Rights Commission – the forms are on the front page of their website.

I look forward to other posts in this thread. “I can understand a landlord preferring a white / straight / childless / Christian couple, especially if they’ve had a bad experience in the past with tenants. Generally white / straight / childless / Christian couples are considered to be financially reliable and tidy, and therefore preferable.”

Lots of hardluck questions concerning housing this week. Something in the water?

As a landlord (the mortgaged type, not the rich type), I can understand a landlord preferring a married couple, especially if they’ve had a bad experience in the past with tenants. Generally married couples are considered to be financially reliable and tidy, and therefore preferable.

That’s not to say that discriminating in favour of them is right, but that is the rationale for it. I know we instructed our agent to favour families after our property was trashed by a group house of young men. If someone’s not paying rent, you can take action, but not so easy in regards to house maintenance.

I suppose another hesitation might be driven by possible legal obligations/expectations placed upon a landlord in regards to disabled access once a lease had been signed, though I’m just pulling that one out of the air and wouldn’t know if that is definitely the case.

Personally I would have no problems with anyone with good references. If you can get/have references, that might help allay any concerns.

Other than that, I think the above suggestion of sending the partner along is probably the way to circumvent upfront bias. It’ll be hard to prove discrimination in a busy market.

Hope they have a change in luck. All these hard luck stories make me feel very fortunate, even after a long and tedious week.

We are about to rent our 3 bed house very close to a primary school for $400/week. Perhaps the editors can pass my email address on to you and your friend can email me. We would be happy to consider first and then run it through our property manager as per usual.

*there are external steps*

As I understand it it is illegal to discriminate against people with children, or or a certain race.

But in practice, when people are getting dozens of applications for each house, they are able to choose tenants based on income and references, and order of submitting the application, rather than any other factors.

That’s a tough situation. As a landlord, though, I will choose someone (or people) who will pay the rent reliably and look after the place. Accordingly, I discriminate against scumbags with a history of damaging property and welshing on rent.

I agree with the comment above. Send the spouse to inspect, and do so as early and quickly as possible when a property is advertised. Don’t wait for ‘open day’.

That does suck, but I do think that landlords get to pick the person they feel is most likely to pay their rent on time, everytime.

My suggested approach would be to send the spouse along to inspect on his own, with the forms already filled out (if you can get them in advance). That way if it looks suitable, the forms can be handed in on the spot. Then if they get offered the property ask to do another inspection before accepting, which is when the whole family goes along.