A Foxtons employee encouraged a landlord to choose private tenants rather than those on housing benefits. A furious housing lawyer has this morning accused Foxtons of using “scare tactics”.
Foxtons lettings manager James Grunshaw in Hampstead, London, asked the landlord who had already signed an agreement with another agent, CityWest Homes, to break the agreement and to let the property through Foxtons instead.
The claims are carried by the London Evening Standard, which carries a leaked email in which Grunshaw says: “We have received a very good offer on the above property. The tenants are young professional tenants…
“CityWest Homes will most likely rent your property out to a tenant that is on House Benefits (sic). I’d imagine children will also be residing in the property too.
“This will create lot’s (sic) more wear and tear on the property than professional tenants in my opinion, creating greater costs when you come to rent the property out again in the future.
“If you only signed last night with City West Homes, and you would prefer this offer above, I would contact them and cancel the agreement you have signed. I’d imagine you would have a cooling off period when signing an agreement.”
Westminster councillor and Labour group leader Adam Hug was up in arms over the email.
He has written to Foxtons, ARLA, and the Department of Communities and Local Government to complain about Foxtons’ practices.
He told the Standard: “This lazy prejudice against housing benefit claimants and their families in the private rented sector has got to stop.
“While the Conservative Government has been increasingly been trying to push more housing cases into the private rented sector, it has become increasingly common for landlords to refuse to accept tenants who might be receiving housing benefit, even when families are not impacted by any welfare caps.
“Foxtons and the wider Letting Agents Industry needs to urgently address such underhand and discriminatory tactics.”
A Foxtons spokesperson told the Standard: “We pride ourselves on the professionalism of our agents and were very disappointed to learn of this isolated incident which does not in any way reflect Foxtons position.
“This is not the standard of behaviour we expect and we will be taking up this matter with the individual concerned to ensure nothing similar happens again.
“Foxtons has numerous tenants who are in receipt of housing benefits and we welcome all tenants looking for a home to rent.”
CityWest Homes is the private lettings arm of Westminster Council.
Housing lawyer Giles Peaker said he had been informed that in this case, the proposed tenant was in fact not a benefits claimant. Peaker, on his Nearly Legal blog, said it was not clear how Foxtons would have found out about this particular deal.
Peaker adds scathingly: “Foxtons would prefer to simply smear claimant tenants, in search of their own fees.” He accused Foxtons of actively trying to get landlords to break agreements “by crude stereotypes and scare tactics”.
He said that for years, many letting agents in London had been refusing to consider any tenants on benefits.
Comments (15)
This is a bit of a nothing story really. An estate agent doing his job. I’m no fan of Foxtons but this just seems to be a case of giving them a kicking for no reason.
Housing benefit claimants just are not the same as private, they can be referenced but on earnings can not be fully referenced as housing benefit is not taken into account and there for landlords can not get insurance. so when you do want vacant possession and the council is telling these people to stay until the bailiffs come knocking landlords are paying thousands in costs because they do not have insurance like they do with the private sector. Perhaps if the government want to push people who claim housing benefits onto the private sector they need to find an insurance company willing to provide cover for unpaid rents and evictions!!
Indeed, instead of opening these useless money wasting ‘private lettings arms of councils’ they should open an insurance arm of the council to support these people they have such confidence in. This would allow landlords to more confidently provide them housing safe in the knowledge they have insurance backing if it all goes belly up.
Whether we like it or not, that private landlord has every right to choose which tenants live in his property.
He cannot discriminate against residents receiving a housing benefit on that criterion alone, but he has every right as a businessman to find a tenant who is in the best position to pay their rent.
The Foxtons representative didn’t exactly make this distinction very subtly, but if the landlord has a right to change his mind before the contract becomes unbreakable, Foxtons have a pretty dead-on professional obligation to try and get that landlord a better deal, and one which also benefits Foxtons!
I wish the spokesperson for Foxtons lived in a world where he could have made that comment as he so deserved, instead of having to call fairly basic estate agency “unacceptable” and “not the standard of behaviour” they aspire to.
“He cannot discriminate against residents receiving a housing benefit on that criterion alone…”
WOWSER – there’s an awful lot of potential discrimination claims queuing up, then – for every property with the words “…No DSS…” in their description.
I hear that the RSPCA are considering starting a Group Action on behalf of those poor creatures disadvantaged by the “…No Pets…” restriction also.
PeeBee, come now.
Landlords care about getting rent paid on time every month. A tenant who isn’t on benefits likely has a better reference, a more secure job, a bigger income and less inclination to move mid-tenancy.
It isn’t the being on housing benefit alone that makes a landlord choose another tenant, it is the circumstances that go alongside it, and the implications of housing benefit.
You can wrap 5h!t up in as much Christmas paper as you like, mrharvey…
It’s still brown, sticky and smelly.
I’m not saying it doesn’t stink, but business often comes before people. We all know that.
I hear that the RSPCA are considering starting a Group Action on behalf of those poor creatures disadvantaged by the “…No Pets…” restriction also.
Proper laugh out loud moment!
The spokesperson is more likely pandering to the thought police. We all know the real response will (probably) be a pat on the back for the aforementioned chap and a continuation of said practise of trying to prise business away from anyone and everyone using whatever argument/means are available…. welcome to the wonderful world of estate agency!
Exactly, well said Beano. It’s not really about the housing benefit…. (As Foxtons said themselves, they have and welcome tenants in receipt of housing benefits.)
Whether or not a prospective tenant is on Housing Benefit is not one of the 9 ‘protected characteristics’ under the Equality Act; a landlord therefore could ‘discriminate’ if he/she so wished … the morality of doing so is another issue.
Sound advice I would have thought although badly worded!
Whoops. I thought they always picked up the phone? Naughty to leave that paper trail
A couple of things
A) had he written an email reminding the landlord that if he/she ever wanted vacant possession, the process is harder due to councils always advise tenants to ignore possession orders and making landlords apply for bailiff warrants. Costing them more money and stress.
b) Westminster council have a department designed at making it difficult for landlords to secure vacant possession. It entitled something friendly but essentially its purpose is help tenants and burden landlords. Every council in England has one. The question is, can city west provide the best service for its customers when its paymasters (the council) have a different agenda.
c) why did foxtons not turn around and say, ” yes we are interested in our fees ahead of claimant tenants, what’s wrong with that, it’s a free market economy And a lot of our taxes fund social services so we don’t wish to be lectured in manner in which we provide it. We would rather they said Thankyou.”
D) as the private residential arm of Westminster council, does city west not have to display their fees. It looks like it just says you will be forced to pay them. It’s disgusting a councils private backed letting agent abusing claimant tenants.
E) finally why on earth is a council doing running a private operation.
NB. I have nothing to do with foxtons but this is just a lets have a kick at them.