Illegal for landlord to refuse on food preference?
Discussion
Next door was rented out to an indian couple, both nice people both Drs, his wife was on maternity leave and everyday 10.30am on went the curry cooking this was left to simmer all day. It smelt very nice but everyone who entered the house said it stank and the kitchen was filthy.
After they left the kitchen needed a very very deep clean.
After they left the kitchen needed a very very deep clean.
There was a flat in the village where I lived where the (enormously fat) father and son that lived there deep fried everything.
The smell even outside was not great, and the windows were filthy.
Council, so no one seemed to care.
I think they died in there pretty much simultaneously IIRC.
The smell even outside was not great, and the windows were filthy.
Council, so no one seemed to care.
I think they died in there pretty much simultaneously IIRC.
Even a no curries rule (that not being the rule here) might possibly be indirectly discriminatory. Compare dress codes in employment: a rule that said all employees must wear skirts or must have beards or whatever would be indirectly discriminatory. I have not come across a rule that says all must have beards and also wear skirts. I suppose that you might get away with it if the job was dressing up as Mad Jack McMad, the well known Highland sheep-botherer.
I definitely wouldn't rent a property that stunk of stale curry and I would hazard a guess that the majority of people wouldn't be keen on it either. A fresh pan on the go can smell sublime but the stale smell that lingers in a property is awful. Sounds like he banged the comment out on what he thought was a throwaway email and probably thought he was untouchable as he had so many houses. Its a difficult one as a landlord could give his/herself some protection via well worded contract terms but I know from personal experience that Indian cooking can be pretty epic in terms of duration and when it occurs daily a house will stink to the extent that it will likely require full redecoration to fully eliminate the smell. This means asking for a deposit that will be above the market norm and you certainly couldn't get into a system of one deposit for one person and a higher one for another.....back to square one.
I viewed a house once and the Indian owners had a separate kitchen in the adjoining garage, the main one was largely for show.
I viewed a house once and the Indian owners had a separate kitchen in the adjoining garage, the main one was largely for show.
Breadvan72 said:
Even a no curries rule (that not being the rule here) might possibly be indirectly discriminatory. Compare dress codes in employment: a rule that said all employees must wear skirts or must have beards or whatever would be indirectly discriminatory. I have not come across a rule that says all must have beards and also wear skirts. I suppose that you might get away with it if the job was dressing up as Mad Jack McMad, the well known Highland sheep-botherer.
I wouldn't even say "might possibly be indirectly".It is very definitely!I would hope that our laws are there to be implemented sensibly rather than immovable lines that can not be changed.
As equal as "no one that cooks curries" would be "no one that is circumcised", "no one with a name ending -ski", "no one with a non native accent" or anything else that doesn't specifically mention the race/nationality but is incredibly obvious who they are discriminating against.
dudleybloke said:
Gavia said:
dudleybloke said:
Bread.... What factory was it?
It’s you isn’t it 
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm not even particularly convinced he's "rich".MASSIVE mortgage monkey on his back, with quite probably fairly ho-hum yields, and a tenant base that's not going to be particularly low-maintenance. If and when he manages to flog it as an entire portfolio, he might do OK. If nobody wants to buy 1,000 properties in one go, as they don't appear to (the first reports he was trying were 2009, and they've been fairly consistent since 2014), then he'll be down to having the better parts cherry-picked, leaving him with the dross.
He's even reported to have agreed a sale in 2015 - https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/dec/09/ferg... - guess that fell through, then.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Friday 10th November 14:18
TooMany2cvs said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm not even particularly convinced he's "rich".MASSIVE mortgage monkey on his back, with quite probably fairly ho-hum yields, and a tenant base that's not going to be particularly low-maintenance. If and when he manages to flog it as an entire portfolio, he might do OK. If nobody wants to buy 1,000 properties in one go, as they don't appear to (the first reports he was trying were 2009, and they've been fairly consistent since 2014), then he'll be down to having the better parts cherry-picked, leaving him with the dross.
He's even reported to have agreed a sale in 2015 - https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/dec/09/ferg... - guess that fell through, then.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Friday 10th November 14:18
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff