Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Little Professor

Migrant Workers Face Rental Block

Recommended Posts

Truly shocking undercover video of several letting agents refusing to let a Polish gentleman view properties to rent, while allowing a British man view the same properties just a few minutes later. Well worth a watch:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8181486.stm

Estate agents are flouting race relations laws by discriminating against migrant workers, a BBC undercover investigation has found.

Firms in Boston, Lincolnshire, were found using illegal techniques to stop foreign workers viewing properties.

Three agents rejected a Polish worker sent by the BBC, while a BBC employee was allowed to view the properties.

One firm denied it discriminated in this way, while another said it had created a new race-relations policy.

There is no suggestion that the agents themselves are racist, but the behaviour uncovered has been described by human rights lawyers as a "disturbing and shocking" breach of the Race Relations Act of 1976 - which applies to England, Scotland and Wales.

This act outlaws discrimination on the basis of race, religion, colour, religious beliefs, national or ethnic origins.

One agent, covertly recorded, said: "You can tell as soon as they speak, you can't tell by looking at them; particularly the Eastern Europeans.

"We say to the migrants - well, which ones do you want to look at? Then we ring them back and say when we ring them back, 'Sorry, well, that one's gone'."

Another agent explained: "I think of a reason - 'The landlord does not think you earn enough money - is not happy'.

"I can't put on the paper, 'No Polish, Portuguese, Latvians, Lithuanians.'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing new there.

What's surprising is how long its been going on for without redress.

I suppose Landlords have a right to decide whom they want to rent to.

But methinks that discretion is going to fly out of the window as the economy worsens and ir rise.

Try renting in parts of "upmarket, old-monied" London and you'll see what I mean.

Worse yet, northern villages.

There are truly some humongously irritatingly uneducated idiots out there.

Isms make me CROSS CROSS CROSS

Time and time again a person's isms is borne out of ignorance. The so called educated racists are not educated just f-ing

literate and pure evil.

YES! ANOTHER RANT!! It's me right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truly shocking undercover video of several letting agents refusing to let a Polish gentleman view properties to rent, while allowing a British man view the same properties just a few minutes later. Well worth a watch:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8181486.stm

Hmm, reminds me of the old "No Blacks or Irish" notices. Never goes away, does it? Just you can't write it down anymore. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truly shocking undercover video of several letting agents refusing to let a Polish gentleman view properties to rent, while allowing a British man view the same properties just a few minutes later. Well worth a watch:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8181486.stm

The reporter may not have experienced problems, and so doesn't realise that much of what shocked him would apply equally to a Brit who fails to lick an agent's **** the right way. I've had "it's gone" when it clearly hasn't, and another member of the agent's staff will give a different story. If the meeja start shining a light on sharp practices, it's not just foreigners who stand to benefit.

What really pisses me off is when I invest time and effort viewing a place ... as in this story.

[edit] the censorware didn't like arse!

Edited by porca misèria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, reminds me of the old "No Blacks or Irish" notices. Never goes away, does it? Just you can't write it down anymore. :(

I had a discussion with a friend of Irish descent and he observed that given a generation or two things get better all on their own, if you kick up you just give people a reason for a dislike that started out irrationally, if you get on with life they begin to see you aren't actually so bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about people who smoke, have pets and/or unemployed???

Landlords can say and often do say they dont want these people renting as well.

You're throwing in a lot of different things there. I wouldn't want a filthy smoker in, 'cos they make a place foul for years after they've gone. And regarding the disabled, there's a bit of a landlord's dilemma in the case of someone with, say, a serious bladder problem.

I still see "female only" adverts from time to time, too.

[edit to add] "I wouldn't want" is of course purely hypothetical, as I have no expectation of ever being a landlord.

Edited by porca misèria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a non-story. Its a landlords right to choose who they rent their place out to. Or do we want additional Labour legislation to take away even more personal choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a non-story. Its a landlords right to choose who they rent their place out to. Or do we want additional Labour legislation to take away even more personal choice?

Presumably the 'personal choice' to be left alone by the dull prejudices of slug witted landlords doesn't concern you though?

Because this is real estate (land), the 'property' and personal choice of the owner overlaps the personal choices of others - as an illustration, if i or a group take all the land / houses as property, i leave you with no way to avoid our petty personal preferences.

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
Why not? It's their feckin property FFS!

That's like saying Richard Branson has the right to employ only white people in Virgin because it's his company. Daft.

(Don't mean to imply that Branson is in anyway racist, just trying to demonstrate a point)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's like saying Richard Branson has the right to employ only white people in Virgin because it's his company. Daft.

No it isn't

It is rather more like a king saying only white people can walk on the ground because he (the king) owns it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the stories of my Dad's arrival in London in 56, from the Windies. In those days many landladies and boarding houses did not have telephones, so placed the address in the newspaper ads for rooms to let.

He told me that on numerous occasions he would arrive at the property to see the infamous sign "no coloureds, no Irish, no dogs" in the window.

He told me that the same discrimination occurred in terms of admission to pubs and clubs. Hence the reason why so many Irish and West Indian immigrants inter-married in those days, including my folks - they ended up meeting in the only pubs and clubs which did not discriminate, and welcomed both groups. (Also, there were other cultural similarities between rural Irish villagers and rural Caribbean villagers in those days).

But it is most definitely illegal,although one never sees the equal ops orgs prosecuting anyone for their racist ads on gumtree etc - presumably because they are too busy stealing taxpayers money for theur fiddles expenses etc.

Edited by Caribbean Beauty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct.

But it shouldn't be.

I see this thread has brought out all the juvenile leftists, liberals and crypto-Stalinists! :lol:

Go on then, I'll bite :rolleyes: If you don't think the property should be owned by the current owners then who do you think should own it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm not really talking about ownership.

I care not about the ownership aspects, although I don't think the BTL product should exist in it's current anti-FTBer form.

I believe the landlord should be forced, by law, to letting their property in it's entirety via a letting agent to whoever damn well turns up, assuming they are capable of paying the rent.

What they get up to in their HOME is their business, no-one elses, with the deposit and court system there to ensure suitable renumeration is handed out for damage etc.

Landlord can own, charge rent, make capital returns, whatever they want. But occupier has complete access to it as their home with zero interference from the landlord, including prying into their personal habits, health, lifestyle etc.

Edited by pete.hpc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
I see this thread has brought out all the juvenile leftists, liberals and crypto-Stalinists! :lol:

And the odd sinister white supremecist! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see this thread has brought out all the juvenile leftists, liberals and crypto-Stalinists! :lol:

Go on then, I'll bite :rolleyes: If you don't think the property should be owned by the current owners then who do you think should own it?

Seems to be the consensus on here that the government should own the property and everything would be done in a fair way. Just like the fair way they allocate Local Authority housing at the moment:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs93.php

The claim of a report published 7th July by the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) - to have demonstrated that there is 'no bias in allocation of social housing to immigrants' - has been shown to be baseless by independent academic analysis.

According to a leading statistical analyst, Professor Mervyn Stone of University College London, the figures that EHRC has disseminated as if they were evidence for the claim are of zero inferential value.

The report therefore constitutes a serious betrayal of the public interest that whatever is the truth of the matter should be established scientifically. In consequence, Civitas has made a formal complaint to the UK Statistics Authority asking it to appraise the reliability of the statistical methods used by the report and the statistical reasoning that underlies its claims.

Failure to compare like with like

In support of its claim, EHRC misrepresents the meaning of two factual assertions:

1. That in 2007 'less than two per cent' (1.8%) of social housing was occupied by migrants who arrived after 2002.

2. That 'nine out of ten' (87.8%) such homes were occupied by people born in the UK.

To make any sense at all, a comparison has to be like-with-like, but this contrast is no such thing.

In 2007, the social housing stock was four million of which 72,000 (1.8%) were occupied by migrants and 3,500,000 (87.8%) by UK born. To estimate the chance of a new-migrant applicant getting a home, you would have to divide the 72,000 by the total number of migrant applicants entitled to housing. To estimate the comparable chance for the UK-born, you would first have to establish the number allocated between 2002 and 2007, before dividing it by the number of UK-born applicants for the same period.

No calculation of that sort was done for the EHRC study. In fact, the extra data that would be needed to do it are nowhere to be found in the EHRC report. If it were done, the correction would almost certainly reduce the gap between the 1.8% and the 87.8%. Could it even be reversed and accepted as evidence against the EHRC claim? That is a possibility because, as the EHRC report concedes, 'most new migrants have no entitlement to housing' and because most of the 3,500,000 homes occupied by the UK-born will have been allocated before 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing new there.

What's surprising is how long its been going on for without redress.

I suppose Landlords have a right to decide whom they want to rent to.

But methinks that discretion is going to fly out of the window as the economy worsens and ir rise.

Try renting in parts of "upmarket, old-monied" London and you'll see what I mean.

Worse yet, northern villages.

There are truly some humongously irritatingly uneducated idiots out there.

Isms make me CROSS CROSS CROSS

Time and time again a person's isms is borne out of ignorance. The so called educated racists are not educated just f-ing

literate and pure evil.

YES! ANOTHER RANT!! It's me right.

Perhaps foreign tennants have a habit of going back home leaving landlords with unrecoverable rent arrears.

In the town near my home which has a high number of Polish migrants, some hairdressers make them pay in advance because they have a habit of walking out without paying.

Is this racist?

You tell me.

Time and time again a person's isms are borne out of personal experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I'm not really talking about ownership.

I care not about the ownership aspects, although I don't think the BTL product should exist in it's current anti-FTBer form.

I believe the landlord should be forced, by law, to letting their property in it's entirety via a letting agent to whoever damn well turns up, assuming they are capable of paying the rent.

What they get up to in their HOME is their business, no-one elses, with the deposit and court system there to ensure suitable renumeration is handed out for damage etc.

Landlord can own, charge rent, make capital returns, whatever they want. But occupier has complete access to it as their home with zero interference from the landlord, including prying into their personal habits, health, lifestyle etc.

You are just transferring the abusive monopoly power from the landlords to the gov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps foreign tennants have a habit of going back home leaving landlords with unrecoverable rent arrears.

In the town near my home which has a high number of Polish migrants, some hairdressers make them pay in advance because they have a habit of walking out without paying.

Is this racist?

You tell me.

Time and time again a person's isms are borne out of personal experience.

Spot on, that was happening in Slough a lot for the 3 or 4 years before I left England, also 4 migrant workers were renting a house and then letting another 8 or 10 in to share as soon as the tenancy was in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and while I am having MY rant

How can it be F*cking racist when the Poles are the same race as us?

Someone mentioned White Supremacists - Poles are white.

Just hope you don't all lose your jobs and then have to compete with someone much younger than you who is prepared to work 12 hrs a day, 7 days a week for less than minimum wage whilst sharing a matress on a floor with 2 or three other people.

Good luck - you'll need it.

Oh and BTW, I think Poles are fantastic people, but if tens of thousands of their young unemployed suddenly turn up in a town with already low wages and high youth unemployment what is going to happen to the local unemployed people and to wages in the area?

And as this is a house price site let me tell you what happened in my local town.

Employment agencies bought up properties forcing prices beyond the means of local young people then shipped in migrants workers to jobs that were never advertised locally. These workers are then crammed 8-10 in a small terraced house and their rent deducted direct from their wages so they are working for less than minimum wage.

Also these workers generally save most of their wages or send it home, so local shops and businesses lose money.

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truly shocking undercover video of several letting agents refusing to let a Polish gentleman view properties to rent, while allowing a British man view the same properties just a few minutes later.

Just like the English in Scotland, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   296 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.