Landlords are advertising for “Muslim only” tenants across London and the south-east in a widespread, illegal practice that breaches the Equality Act. The Telegraph has the story.
The listings, posted on Facebook, Gumtree and Telegram, a social media and messaging channel, feature phrases such as “only for Muslims”, “for two Muslim boys or two Muslim girls” and “Muslims preferred”.
Others include direct appeals to Punjabi and Gujarati speakers or Kerala and Haryana people, while there are also job vacancies on the platforms that are advertised for men only.
On Facebook, a company called Roshan Properties, which also has a TikTok account, had dozens of listings stating “prefer Muslim boy”, “one double room is available for Muslims” and “suitable for Punjabi boy”.
Others advertised for “Hindus only” while there are also posts from those seeking to rent on religious lines, including one listing that states: “The house should be alcohol and smoke free.”
Facebook took the page down after being alerted by the Telegraph. Gumtree listings also include requests for only Muslim and Hindu tenants.
All the advertisements appear to breach the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination based on religion or belief, race and other protected characteristics.
Landlords who breach the act can be brought to a civil court by a tenant or prospective tenant.
Landlords and letting agents are not allowed to specify a preference for a particular religion or race when letting a property. Under the act, “Muslim only” or similarly specific advertisements are considered unacceptable and discriminatory.
There is a partial exception if a person is renting out a room in their own home and sharing accommodation, such as a kitchen or bathroom, with the tenant.
One of the listings features on an official estate agency website, but with the “Muslims preferred” reference removed.
The law applies even when listings appear on lesser-known platforms such as Telegram, but the platform itself may not be liable if it is just hosting advertisements. However, the person posting it can be.
Major property portals such as Gumtree are not supposed to allow ads that discriminate by religion, race or gender, and should remove listings that specify “Muslim Only”.
While some landlords may request specific demographics based on dietary requirements – such as wanting only vegetarians in order to avoid meat in the kitchen – applying this strictly through religious or racial profiling is generally prohibited.
The religiously specified rentals are being advertised across the capital in towns and boroughs including Ilford, Newham, Barking, Dagenham, East Ham, Redbridge, Walthamstow, Upton Park, Harrow and Newbury Park.
On Facebook, they are listed on pages such as “Renting room in London for Muslims” and “Muslim rents”.
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I bet they all face east. Islam brings nothing to a civilised world. It still lives in the 7th century. The Mullahs in Persia are just as corrupt as their western counterparts.
The simple fact is, islamification is being pushed, and pushed hard in this country and that needs to be stopped, but as we all know, one rule for us, one rule for them, I’ve also seen jobs advertised in chinese, for nail bar staff, surely thats discrimination too?
One could make a nice little earner from challenging such adverts but you might end up prosecuted for a hate crime or even worse get put under ‘pressure’ from the landlord and I doubt the police would be interested if you reported that.
Muslim landlord?
“Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.”
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GffqXNbHQ/
And here’s Oldham getting in on the act.
Ahh… diversity is our strength.
At least it’s honest. Most London boroughs seem to operate a Muslim only policy when it comes to the allocation of their social housing. They’re just about clever enough not to advertise the fact.
And yet how many people remember the obscure historical fact that British War Widows after WWII were actually threatened with heavy fines and imprisonment if they refused to accept Ethnic Africans from the Caribbean Windrush-type ships into their own homes as bed & breakfast lodgers, or refused to let them sleep in the empty beds of the widow’s dead husband or children killed in the War, and refused to cook and clean for the Ethnic Africans?
It was all the Evil Clement Attlee’s idea, forcibly rounding up 100,000 British children of poor families made destitute by WWII and transporting them to Australia like tiny criminals, promising them a better life, but refusing to let their parents go with them. At the same time, Stalinist Attlee started importing 200,000 Ethnic Africans and Ethnic Indian Subcontinentals, and giving them priority in job applications, while shoving British War Veterans aside.
They don’t teach that sort of history in schools.
Attlee was widely regarded as a nice, avuncular chap. But he was the PM who began the socialisation of Britain that has hardly been reversed at any time other than the 1980s.
You’re one of the very few whose eyes are wide open about Attlee. He also treasonously colluded with Stalin, who waited until Attlee was in charge while Churchill was on his way to the Yalta conference, then persuaded Attlee to secretly order the Firebombing of Dresden behind Churchill’s back to please Stalin. Churchill only found out at Yalta when Stalin taunted him about it, and Churchill got all the blame ever after for what Traitor Attlee had done.
Clement Attlee should be posthumously charged with Crimes Against Humanity, and have it engraved on his headstone.
It has always seemed to me that religion and sexual orientation, being matters of choice, ought not to be protected characteristics under the equality act.
The Equality Act should be abolished entirely.
Bye, bye, DEI ! 🙂
Sexual orientation (straight, gay, bi or whatever) is not a “matter of choice”, any more than, say, a fear of mice. Choosing whether or not to act in accordance with it is another matter.
“Landlords who breach the act can be brought to a civil court by a … prospective tenant.”
Wow. Didn’t know that. Yet more hatred towards landlords.
I’m supposed to start a new job on 1st of June. But I need to relocate to a different town for this. Yesterday, I had a telephone conversation where I was told that “due to the renter’s right act”, “landlords” can unfortunately not “risk” to let “unemployed people” rent anything anymore, because they may no longer demand rent in advance from them. That I’m starting a new job in about 4 weeks doesn’t count. Until then, I must not rent. And this despite I’ve got enough savings in my bank account to live comfortably for years without work. Doesn’t count, either.
My guess about the reason for this is that the renter’s rights act will make it illegal to refuse to rent to people on benefits. But it says nothing about refusing to rent to people who are unemployed and hence, by doing latter, it’s still possible to get rid ot welfare recipients. This doesn’t fit my situation at all because I’m not unemployed (work contract has been signed, just the start date hasn’t been reached) and have – as I already wrote – plenty of money to pay for my cost of living for a long time to come… Read more »
Does anybody seriously believe that stopping people from advertising a flat as “muslims only” will stop them from letting it only to muslims?
The theory behind this is that it’s not in the best interest of a landlord to reject any tenant who can pay the rent. However, a competing theory is that people with tangible assets can be arbitrarly picky because sooner or later, the “right” kind of prospective tenant will show up.
The equality act doesn’t and cannot prevent discrimination.
Totally agree.
Personally, we should be thanking these people for challenging an oppressive, intrusive law that only served to make the law makers who made it feel the warm glow of their own virtue.
In some ways I have to say, people that are, let’s say, culturally not native, white Brits, have a healthier attitude towards laws and regulations, which is not to pay too much attention to the ones they think are no good.
In the end, whether we like it or not, non-compliance is the single most effective form of protest against the state behemoth.
I agree
Also if they don’t want people like me in the place I’d rather know about it up front so nobody wastes time
There is of course the possibility that a tenant might not want a Muslim landlord.
It may well be a consideration
Agree, RW.
Would that be similar to them telling me I’m not allowed to be a white racist bigot?
I bloody well will be, if I wanted to
“The equality act doesn’t and cannot prevent discrimination.”
100%
I’d actually rather it didn’t try or pretend to, because it is likely to be used selectively to further some agenda
Such laws simply shouldn’t exist because they cannot possibly be enforced. They’re really only useful to people who are “professionally discriminated” and (try to) extort money from others by (threatening to) sue them.
I think it’s good because I wouldn’t want to live in a flat with a load of Muslims .
Forewarned is forearmed.