The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) is warning that the Government has failed to prepare landlords for the post-Brexit private rental sector.
The organisation believes that EU citizens may face problems accessing rental housing after Brexit.
Ministers have failed to issue any guidance for landlords around the implications of Brexit on the Right to Rent scheme.
Under this controversial policy, landlords are responsible for checking the immigration status of their tenants, with the prospect of prosecution if they know or have “reasonable cause to believe” that someone who does not have the right to rent in the UK is occupying their property.
With two-thirds of all EU nationals in the UK living in private rental accommodation, the RLA is worried that landlords have received no specific guidance about their status, other than sweeping statements by ministers.
The RLA’s most recent research suggests that around a fifth of landlords are less likely to let to nationals from the EU or the EEA as a result of the Right to Rent scheme – a figure the RLA warns could increase post-Brexit.
David Smith, the Policy Director for the RLA, insists: “Landlords are not border police and cannot be expected to know who does and who does not have the right to live here.
“The Government needs to publish clear and practical guidance for landlords about the implications of Brexit on who they can and cannot rent to. If they do not, more landlords will become increasingly fearful about renting to non-UK nationals, with the potential of facing prosecution.”
He adds: “The result will be they will avoid renting to anyone who is not a UK national, making life difficult for EU nationals.”
Private landlords could be charged for discrimination under the Right to Rent scheme, after the High Court ruled that attempting to evict a tenant who does not have the right to rent a property in the UK would breach the Equality Act.
Right to Rent, which is one of the Government’s flagship immigration policies, has now been branded a farce after the ruling. The High Court concluded that a landlord who seeks to repossess their property when the Home Office tells them that a tenant does not have the right to rent is breaching equalities law.
Under the scheme, landlords are responsible for checking the immigration status of all prospective tenants, with the risk of prosecution if they know or have reasonable cause to believe that someone who does not have the right to rent in the UK occupies the property. Theresa May, as Home Secretary, introduced Right to Rent as a key plank of the Government’s hostile environment for illegal immigrants.
If the Home Office identifies a tenant without the right to rent, it will issue a formal notice to the landlord, who then uses this as the basis to repossess their property. In a judgement issued by the High Court, it has ruled that this breaches the Equality Act, on the basis that it amounts to “direct discrimination on the basis of nationality”.
While the wording of the Act means that the Home Secretary cannot be prosecuted for this, landlords who are forced to comply with the notice can be charged under the law, as well as being at risk of a civil claim being made against them.
This ruling gives tenants who may not legally be allowed to be in the country a defence against any claim to evict them from a property, and entitles them to an injunction to prevent eviction and possibly a further claim for damages.
A further ruling, earlier this month, by the High Court concluded that the scheme breached the European Convention on Human Rights, on the basis that it led to discrimination against non-UK nationals with the right to rent and British ethnic minorities. The judge concluded that Right to Rent caused landlords to discriminate, where otherwise they would not, describing such discrimination as being “logical and wholly predictable” when faced with potential sanctions and penalties for getting things wrong.
The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) is writing to the Home Office to seek urgent changes to address what it is describing as a farcical situation.
David Smith, the Policy Director of the RLA, says: “This new ruling makes the Right to Rent a farce. To put landlords in a position where acting on a direct instruction provided by the Home Office leaves them open to breaching equality law cannot be tolerated.
“With the High Court having ruled that discrimination is baked into the Right to Rent scheme, it is time for the policy to be scrapped altogether.”
The High Court ruled that Parliament’s decision to impose Right to Rent checks is outweighed by the potential for race discrimination by landlords and letting agents conducting these inspections, which Nokes described as “disappointing”.
“We disagree with this finding and the Home Office has been granted permission to appeal all aspects of the judgement,” she added.
However, Nokes insisted that the requirements under the Right to Rent scheme remain in force; there is no immediate change to the operation of the policy.
“Landlords and letting agents are still obliged to conduct Right to Rent checks as required in legislation,” she explained. “They must not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their colour or where they come from.”
Nokes also pointed to comments made by the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid MP, regarding options for a further evaluation of the operation of the scheme. As part of this, the Government will “look to develop further mechanisms to monitor the operation of the scheme to provide ongoing assurance about its impact”.
The Home Secretary has written to the independent adviser on lessons learned from the Windrush scandal, Wendy Williams, to draw her attention to the High Court ruling.
“The Right to Rent Consultative Panel will meet again next month to look at the operation of the scheme, and the guidance provided to landlords and letting agents,” Nokes revealed.
She clarified: “The Government is committed to tackling discrimination in all its forms and to having an immigration system which provides control, but which is also fair, humane and fully complaint with the law. This includes ensuring illegal migrants, with no right to be in the UK, are not able to access work, benefits and public services.”
The Right to Rent scheme was first trialled in the West Midlands, before its national introduction in 2016. The trial was evaluated in full, with the results published in October 2015.
The Home Office assessment found no systematic discrimination on the basis of race.
Landlords and letting agents are reminded that the Right to Rent scheme is still a legal requirement, despite the High Court’s ruling last week.
The Government must end the controversial Right to Rent scheme, after the High Court ruled it in breach of human rights laws on Friday (1st March 2019), insists homelessness charity Crisis.
The current Right to Rent scheme requires landlords to check that all prospective adult tenants have the right to rent property in the UK, by checking their official documentation, such as a passport or visa.
If landlords fail to complete these checks or let to someone who does not have the right to rent in the UK, they could face criminal charges.
Jon Sparkes, the Chief Executive of Crisis, is pleased with the ruling: “It is fantastic news that the High Court has ruled that this discriminatory policy be reviewed, taking the vital first step needed to scrap it altogether.
“Every day, our frontline staff hear of the overwhelming difficulties faced by homeless people trying to find a tenancy in the already saturated rental market. This is made even harder if someone has to prove their immigration status, especially as official documents like passports can often be lost sleeping rough, moving from hostel to hostel, or fleeing domestic abuse – and replacements can be prohibitively expensive. And, as a result of this policy, many landlords are avoiding renting to anyone they don’t believe to be British, to avoid the threat of prosecution if they accidentally rent to the wrong person.”
He insists: “This can’t carry on. No one deserves to face the devastation of homelessness – especially at a time when the crisis is worsening. The Government must act now to end this policy and ensure that those in the most vulnerable circumstances are supported, rather than pushed further to the fringes.”
The High Court has ruled today that the Government’s Right to Rent scheme breaches human rights.
Under Right to Rent, landlords are responsible for checking the immigration status of all prospective tenants, with the risk of prosecution if they know or have reasonable cause to believe that someone who does not have the right to rent in the UK occupies the property that they’re letting. Theresa May, as Home Secretary, introduced the scheme as a key part of the Government’s hostile environment for illegal immigrants.
The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) joined with human rights group Liberty to intervene in a case brought by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), to have the policy declared incompatible with human rights, on the grounds that it is leading to discrimination against non-UK nationals who might be in the country legitimately, along with British ethnic minorities.
Recent research by the RLA found that the fear of getting things wrong led to 44% of private landlords being less likely to let to those without a British passport. It also revealed that 53% of landlords were less likely to let to those with limited time to remain in the UK, while 20% were less likely to consider letting to EU or EEA nationals.
Similar findings were uncovered by the JCWI. Significantly, during the course of the case, Government research recently emerged that confirmed that a significant proportion of landlords were unwilling to let to people without British passports.
Delivering his verdict in the High Court today, Mr. Justice Martin Spencer ruled that the scheme breaches the European Convention on Human Rights, on the basis that it led to discrimination against non-UK nationals with the right to rent property and British ethnic minorities.
In a damning ruling, Mr. Justice Spencer, referring extensively to arguments and evidence provided by the RLA, concluded that discrimination by landlords was taking place “because of the scheme”.
He went on: “The Government’s own evaluation failed to consider discrimination on grounds of nationality at all, only on grounds of ethnicity.”
The judge continued, finding that Right to Rent “does not merely provide the occasion or opportunity for private landlords to discriminate, but causes them to do so where otherwise they would not”, describing such discrimination as being “logical and wholly predictable” when faced with potential sanctions and penalties for getting things wrong.
High Court Rules Right to Rent a Breach of Human Rights
He added: “The safeguards used by the Government to avoid discrimination, namely online guidance, telephone advice, and codes of conduct and practice, have proved ineffective. In my judgment, in those circumstances, the Government cannot wash its hands of responsibility for the discrimination which is taking place, by asserting that such discrimination is carried out by landlords acting contrary to the intention of the scheme.”
The ruling comes following a report published last year by David Bolt, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, which found that Right to Rent has “yet to demonstrate its worth as a tool to encourage immigration compliance” and that the Home Office was “failing to coordinate, maximise or even measure effectively its use, while, at the same time, doing little to address the concerns of stakeholders”.
Academics at the University of Oxford suggest that the foreign-born population is almost three times as likely to live in the private rental sector than those born in the UK.
The RLA and JCWI have written to the Home Secretary, seeking an urgent meeting.
John Stewart, the Policy Manager at the RLA, says: “Today’s ruling is a damning critique of a flagship Government policy. We have warned all along that turning landlords into untrained and unwilling border police would lead to the exact form of discrimination the court has found.
“We call on the Government to accept the decision, scrap the Right to Rent, and consider what else can be done to sensibly manage migration, without having to rely on untrained landlords to do the job of the Home Office.”
Chai Patel, the Legal Policy Director for the JCWI, adds: “There is no place for racism in the UK housing market. Now that the High Court has confirmed that Theresa May’s policy actively causes discrimination, Parliament must act immediately to scrap it. But we all know that this sort of discrimination, caused by making private individuals into border guards, affects almost every aspect of public life – it has crept into our banks, hospitals and schools. Today’s judgment only reveals the tip of the iceberg and demonstrates why the hostile environment must be dismantled.”
Some landlords are giving preference to potential tenants who are white with British passports, due to the impact of the Right to Rent scheme, a court has heard.
The Government’s controversial scheme, which requires landlords to conduct immigration checks on potential tenants, has been challenged in the High Court.
Under Right to Rent, which was introduced in 2016, landlords face the prospect of prosecution if they know or have reasonable cause to believe that someone who does not have the legal right to rent in the UK is living in their property.
The judicial review case – brought by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) – which concluded yesterday (Wednesday 19th December 2018), argues that the scheme puts tenants who have a legal right to be in the UK at risk of homelessness and destitution.
The barrister representing the JCWI, Philippa Kaufman QC, told the High Court that the scheme encourages landlords to give preference to white people with British passports, in order to reduce the risk of prosecution.
She described Right to Rent as an “onerous scheme” that presents “huge risks and burdens” for landlords, adding: “If someone is a British citizen, they know they are safe.”
She continued: “The evidence shows they prefer not just a British national, but a British national with a passport to show, because then they can be sure there is no doubt.
“BAME [black, Asian and minority ethnic] British citizens are treated less favourably when they don’t have a passport than white British citizens. Where they do not have a passport, you then resort to proxies – do they appear British? – i.e. skin colour, name, accent, and so forth.”
Chai Patel, the Legal Policy Director for the JCWI, has accused the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, of “ignoring” a report earlier this year by David Bolt, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, which concluded that the Right to Rent scheme has “yet to demonstrate its worth as a tool to encourage immigration compliance”, and that the Home Office is “failing to coordinate, maximise or even measure effectively its use, while, at the same time, doing little to address the concerns of stakeholders”.
They added: “This is extraordinarily intrusive red tape that conscripts landlords as border officials on pain of imprisonment, and Sajid Javid won’t even check that it’s working as planned.”
