Insurers Routinely Discriminating Against DSS tenants

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Originally posted by gnvqsos View Post
    Are you stating that benefit recipients purchase electrical goods as safe as those in social classes A and B
    Nope, I'm saying that there is zero evidence that benefit recipients purchase electrical goods that are less safe than those not on benefits.
    And, in the absence of any evidence, to assert otherwise is evidence of a prejudice.
    Pretty much by definition.

    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by Kape65 View Post

      So you wouldn't rent to Romany Gypsies?
      Depends, I know nothing of their history until I meet them. Nothing against them as a group.

      Helped my dad as a PoW in Poland in the war. And we know what adolf did to them

      Are you asking as you routinely discriminate against such persons, please?
      I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

      Comment


        #48
        why would Romany Gypsies want a house anyway? Surely if they are true Romany Gypsies they will be on the road most of the time. Just an observation....
        Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

        Comment


          #49
          Following on from the assumptions of the court regarding DSS tenants it's possible that discriminating against people because they are unable to prove the source of their income would discriminate unfairly against Romanies ( a protected characteristic). Ridiculous I know, but if you follow the judges logic concerning DSS tenants being discriminated against because they are mostly women and therefore it's sex discrimination then you couldn't refuse to let to anybody that can't prove their income because it would unfairly discriminate against Romanies. And just to answer islandgirl, there are scores of Gypsies in council housing near where I live.

          Comment


            #50
            Yes, it would - and protected characteristics correlate with all sorts of things so there is no end to that which could be described as 'indirect discrimination'. Hence I am fairly dubious about the whole idea. That said, I think this point would be countered by the 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' qualifier. Indirect discrimination caused by a LL requiring proof of income would be OK since it is legitimate and proportionate.
            There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

            Comment


              #51
              The point is that you have to treat all people equally. (The EQUALITY Act).

              You can't just lump people into broad groups based on, often/usually incorrect, assumptions.

              The Protected Charataristics are defined because it is usually those characteristics that are regularly not treated equaly; either directly (no Irish, no Jews, no Blacks, no homosexuals, etc.), or as in this case indirectly by 'blanket' decisions (no benefits).

              As long as your judgement criteria are the same for everybody then that's fine.
              If you have different criteria for what you percieve as different (lesser?) groups then that is not.

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                Nope, I'm saying that there is zero evidence that benefit recipients purchase electrical goods that are less safe than those not on benefits.
                And, in the absence of any evidence, to assert otherwise is evidence of a prejudice.
                Pretty much by definition.
                The office for national stats hold data on different income groups and their respective patterns of ownership of tvs etc,and these show more reliance on pre-owned items.Is that evidence acceptable?

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by nukecad View Post
                  The point is that you have to treat all people equally. (The EQUALITY Act).

                  You can't just lump people into broad groups based on, often/usually incorrect, assumptions.

                  The Protected Charataristics are defined because it is usually those characteristics that are regularly not treated equaly; either directly (no Irish, no Jews, no Blacks, no homosexuals, etc.), or as in this case indirectly by 'blanket' decisions (no benefits).

                  As long as your judgement criteria are the same for everybody then that's fine.
                  If you have different criteria for what you percieve as different (lesser?) groups then that is not.
                  I think you confuse two concepts/adjectives,equitable and equal-fair and equal are not the same.

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by nukecad View Post
                    As long as your judgement criteria are the same for everybody then that's fine.
                    Unless of course you say to everybody, equally, "I will not let my property to you if you rely on benefits to pay your rent". Then that's not fine.
                    There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

                    Comment


                      #55
                      No, because that's treating one group differently to another soley based on pre-judging of that group. (Prejudice)

                      (ie.You are saying that you will consider non-benefits claimants individually, but not benefits claimants because you have pre-judged all benefits claimants as being the same).

                      Saying "I will not let to you if your income is below xxx (no matter where it comes from), or if it is unstable income" would be fine because that is judging every applicant equally with no pre-conception.

                      Again the whole point here is about blanket bans, and the pre-judging of the blanket group that it implies.

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by gnvqsos View Post
                        The office for national stats hold data on different income groups and their respective patterns of ownership of tvs etc,and these show more reliance on pre-owned items.Is that evidence acceptable?
                        That would be interesting - and I've not seen it - but again, it's not actually evidence of safety.
                        Do you have a link?
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                          That would be interesting - and I've not seen it - but again, it's not actually evidence of safety.
                          Do you have a link?
                          I think you will find uit uis an effective proxy.A poor person is likely to attempt repairs or use goods which are failing,as I did when a student.

                          Comment

                          Latest Activity

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X