The High Court has ruled that the Government’s Right to Rent scheme breaches human rights law.
Under the Right to Rent 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 the property they are letting is occupied by someone who does not have the right to rent in the UK. It was introduced by Theresa May as Home Secretary as a key plank of the Government’s ‘hostile environment’ for illegal immigrants.
The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) joined with Liberty to intervene in a case brought by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants to have the policy declared as incompatible with human rights on the grounds that it was leading to discrimination against non-UK nationals who might be in the country legitimately and 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 rent to those without a British passport. It found also that 53% of landlords were less likely to rent to those with limited time to remain in the UK, whilst 20% said that they were less likely to consider letting property to EU or EEA nationals.
Significantly, during the course of the case government research emerged which confirmed a significant proportion of landlords were unwilling to rent to people without British passports.
Delivering his verdict in the High Court today, Justice Martin Spencer ruled 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.
Justice Spencer concluded that discrimination by landlords was taking place “because of the Scheme.” He went on to conclude that “the Government’s own evaluation failed to consider discrimination on grounds of nationality at all, only on grounds of ethnicity.”
The Judge continued by finding that the 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 by landlords a being “logical and wholly predicable” when faced with potential sanctions and penalties for getting things wrong.
He concluded: “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.”
Tom Gatzen, co-founder of ideal flatmate said, “Another knee-jerk reaction by the Government in an attempt to clamp down on immigration seems to have backfired yet again.
Not only has this policy created unnecessary burdens on landlords, but it has also breached the human rights of people looking for rental accommodation.
The only saving grace is that the scheme is yet to be rolled out across the rest of the UK and we would call on the Home Office to reconsider its implementation in England.”
John Stewart, policy manager for the RLA said, “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, legal policy director for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants said, “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.”