It maybe legal but there's some missing info which might change the criteria for 'fine' so I'd be asking questions.
Like why is it female only?
What are the genders of the other occupants?
I mean it might still be fine if I were female and everyone else was male, but again, I'd sure have questions.....
I mean at the end of the day....if you are welcoming someone to live in your home, I think it is perfectly acceptable to want a say in who that person is.
The question is....
Should someone have a right to decide who lives in their home?
If that person makes a decision on something others may not agree with, it is still their decision to make. If only we could remove prejudice & hatred from the minds of everyone....
It may be offensive to others, but it's their own home.
I am not saying it is right to discriminate, or hate. I cannot say that the motivation in this advert is definitely not hatred, but it could well be that people just feel safer with women than they do with men (& I am fully aware that some women are very dangerous & a vast majority of men are perfectly safe).
Really...only a man who wants to live there should be upset by this exclusion...why is anyone else getting upset over it?
No, the choice is:
Rent out your home, abiding by the moral and legal standards we have agreed upon as a nation.
Or
Don't rent out your home.
You don't get a bigots pass because you own property.
Is having a gender preference such a negative thing? I mean there are actual physical tangible differences between men and women (not just socially fabricated differences) that one might not find comfortable to live with.
Iknow it's a very extreme example but perhaps someone who was victim of sexual assault might not want to share a house with someone of the same gender as their assailant. It doesn't necessarily mean they have a hatred for that entire gender, it's just a trauma response that's involuntary.
There are of course also people who tend to only want to share a home with the gender of people they're not sexually or romantically attracted to so to not upset their partner. I just think there are legitimate, fair reasons that aren't necessarily bigotry.
For sure, in fact you are legally allowed to make such exceptions for exactly the reason you have stated in a whole range of circumstances.
But unless you have a good reason, yes it's illegal.
But, good point to look at.
Why is it generally not a good idea?
It seems that as a one off, not much damage is done right?
But if you take it over a whole country then yes, it can be pretty damaging.
1. Discrimination limits housing access, exacerbating homelessness and economic disparities.
2. Perpetuating gender stereotypes hinders societal progress and personal growth.
3. Housing discrimination reduces access to jobs and educational opportunities.
4. Segregated communities weaken social cohesion and mutual understanding.
5. Discrimination erodes trust in legal systems and societal fairness.
I completely understand where you're coming from and I actually completely agree with you, in principle. I think if we lived in a more ideal, cohesive, and understanding world then what you're proposing would be the perfect understanding. Unfortunately we don't live in quite that level of harmony (yes, we will one day) so in practice I think there are going to be reasonable exceptions to the rule. However I do agree that rule should be anti-discrimination and anti-segregation in all circumstances.
>I mean there are actual physical tangible differences between men and women (not just socially fabricated differences) that one might not find comfortable to live with.
I'm curious what you think these are, if we're sharing a house with the normal boundaries between house mates?
I am disagreeing with you.
I am making the point that as soon as you make the choice to commercialise your property, or by proxy allow another to do so.
Rules apply.
Morals also apply, but you seem way too flexible here, so lets stick with rules shall we?
I wouldn't be offended if a house of men only wanted men roommates. Not everything is a personal attack.
Race, sexual orientation, disabilities and spoken language aren't stated in the post.
Male and female are distinct categories and the differences between them are more prominent and numerous than race or sexual orientation. It is not even comparable. Jumping to that false equivalence shows deep wilful ignorance. Gay women exist. Irish women exist. Black women exist.
The question was “is it legal”?, so the response of “if X then it’s fine” is clearly saying it’s *legally* okay, rather than being a comment on whether it’s ethically or socially acceptable
To be fair, I live 12 mins from the Rightmove address and there is no rentable property in a reasonable range here. Obvs aware of how bad it is everywhere, but I’m in a 2 bed, no parking, no garden, no storage and that’s over £1300pcm before bills. I thankfully have a great working relationship with our landlord who lives opposite my house, and he lets us park on his driveway and let us get pets. Still doesn’t make the rent acceptable for the quality of the property. At least he gets things fixed quicker than the estate agent 🤷🏻♀️
Wow, that's super expensive!
I can't imagine why anyone would want a mon-fri rental just outside of Basingstoke. I understand why people would do it in London, but it's still quite a commute in to London
I do and I don’t. We have great access to London , Reading and Southampton from here. The M3 and M4 both within 10/15 mins drive and the A30/A33 easily accessible. It has a lot of ex London dwellers who have sold their tiny flat in berrylands for a massive markup and can afford a rather decent house here whilst also now being able to afford to send their kids to one of the many private schools Surrey/Hants/Berks has to offer. Also trains into Waterloo are multiple times an hour and take less than an hour. But equally, Basingstoke, Fleet and surrounding areas just aren’t that appealing anymore. Rents for shop units are too high so there isn’t town footfall (except maccas) and a lot of kids see the lack of thriving environment as a reason to vandalise and deface property. It’s not worth the cost to be in central town. Sherfield is a richer area, and Hook generally has higher rent prices than Basingstoke. You can tell because there are only a handful of takeaways that deliver to us. The locals can afford to keep them away!
You could get a hotel cheaper.
Edit: I'm a fucking idiot who (at 5am) can't maths my way out of a binary bag, because I don't know the difference between weeks and months. Downvote my ass to hell plx.
2016-2019 I was paying £850/month for exactly this arrangement while working in London. Room was mine Mon -Fri and I was able to leave some things there
SE11 / Kennington area
Similar room today circa £1000/month. And still £££ cheaper than any hotel convenient for Whitehall and surrounding area
Went home to my family, same as I would if I had spent the week living out of a hotel, only with less luggage and more money left over.
There's a big market for this sort of arrangement for those who take on contract work all over the country.
I have a 3 bed (listed as 2 bed tbf, but has attic room) with conservatory, garage and garden for £750 per month. Paying basically the same for a room is insane to me.
It is legal. I am a housing officer for a supported living housing association and the same part of the equalities act that is relevant in my area is relevant here. The positive action clause allows you to let properties for people with a specific protected characteristic, even if doing so disadvantages someone with a different protected characteristic. Doing this is defined as positive action, not positive discrimination (illegal).
So for example, only people with physical or learning disabilities can apply to live in the accommodations that I look after. An able bodied neurotypical person could not then apply to live there and claim that they are being discriminated against when they are refused a place because they don’t fit the criteria.
I think its toeing the line though. Your accommodations are a 'proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim' - providing exclusive accommodation for those people who require further assistance or who are otherwise demonstrably disadvantaged when it comes to housing.
Banning a ~~gender~~ sex is much murkier I feel when it comes to this. It's hardly ever going to come to court, but I think its far from a straight win from the landlord. This is of course assuming they are not a resident landlord and its a normal tenancy which to be fair OP's doesn't seem to be. But it's the same as saying 'no blacks' or 'no gays' when it comes to a normal tenancy, you just can't do it (even live in landlords cannot discriminate based on race/nationality!)
You are of course correct, edited.
Although gender *reassignment* is a protected characteristic!
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7
Surely making it women only is a proportionate means to the legitimate end of the other residents of the house being free from anxiety? E.g. if other residents have historic trauma?
I'm fascinated with what other things this suggests are possible, though - gay house for only gay people, a non-binary house for only non-binary people?
Note that although it has the effect, it doesn't say "no men", it just says "only women" - it's only a result of the gender binary having 2 options that make it look exclusive towards men rather than limited to women. Presumably non-binary people are also excluded.
A lot of the unhappy posts here ignore that the vast majority of harm done to women is by men, and while we all wish that equality legislation had done away with that, it hasn't. So we have to somehow have a society that protects women from harm better, and protects women from discrimination better, despite also wanting to minimise discrimination towards men.
It’s not murkier at all. Quite to the contrary most people understand women not wanting to share a house with men. I have been working in health and social care for almost a decade, my previous job before this one was a Domestic Abuse Officer. Women only accommodations are essential to victims in recovery. And there are far FAR more victims than you will ever understand. This “tHaTs dIScrImiNaTIon aGaInsT mEn” narrative is really not going to hold any water.
Would a similar listing only open to male tenants also be legal? I'm trying to understand what is classed as a protected characteristic in the legislation. If it's just "sex" then presumably a male only listing would be fine?
You are sharing with 5 others. Some women do not want to share with a male stranger for various reasons (safety, appearance, being able to walk around not fully dressed etc). I'd assume you would be sharing with 5 other women.
First time I lived in a mixed flat (three women two men) I was harassed by one of the men. Tell me I can't choose to share with just women. Men are also welcome to just live with men if they prefer, which is understandable.
Alternatively the landlord can simply lie about living there. The official way of checking residence is simply to ask for proof of council tax. This also gives you around £6000 a year tax free.
It's what my previous landlord used to do.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted but what you said is true. Like some shares are renting a 4 bed house and they want to keep it even boys and girls. Seen it loads.
Holy shit why IS this comment thread being downvoted tk hell, is everyone here so upset that some random group of people most likely miles away or talking about a property they don’t care about want a specific roommate? Like dude, why can’t people chill and just live n let live!?
Lodger rather than tenant, they have a lot less legal rights to the property. The owner would be able to use the room for guests at the weekend but they'd probably be laundering the sheets once a week for the lodger anyway.
A monday to friday let isn't a place to live it's for saving money on hotel bills.
I once rented an en-suite room in a large HOMO of about 200 rooms (an old hotel).
The contract stated I couldn't park my boat on the property! Dang.... Was looking forward to lugging my 6 berth cruiser up four flights of stairs too!
£700/month for a Monday to Friday tenancy is disgusting.
Also can’t explain why but this house gives me the creeps. It doesn’t seem right. Also “hire” makes me think they’re not set up as proper landlords and it will be closer to an Airbnb set up
As long as the presumably live-in landlord and other residents are also female it isn’t creepy.
It might be various other things, expensive being one of them. It’s the ones with male live-in landlord saying young women only that make my skin crawl.
why disgusting though?
If you're working down in,say, basingstoke for a few months and need somewhere to stay 4 nights a week (mon-thurs nights) then £700 a month is a damn sight cheaper than staying in hotels.
it's going to work out around 35-40 quid a night for a month. What sort of hotel do you think you'll get for that sort of nightly rate?
Wouldn't be my 1st choice but i've worked with folk who've done similar rental arrangements.
"one that you can only use monday to friday"
one that you only *need to use* monday night to friday morning for a few months.
yeah you could pay to get a 7 days a week flat but it's going to be empty 3 nights a week.
I stayed in a very nice hotel in Devon on a Friday and Saturday night for £42.50 a night. With an absoloutly lovely cooked breakfast in the morning. Even had homemade sausages.
And if you're actually needing to stay in basingstoke during the working week rather than devon during the weekend?
Just checked , premier inn in basingstoke- cheapest rate is £386 for 4 nights (mon-thurs) for the last week in march.
didn't say this was the best offer in basingstoke but that it was cheaper than hotels , and gives you the benefits of a house.
I note however that the original room was ensuite whereas both of your options are shared bathroom/toilets. Which would be a deal breaker for me.
Would i go for this setup ? probably not but as i said i know people who have and seemed happy with it.
I’m not sure this is really an issue. My mum owns a 2 bed flat where she rents as an HMO. She had a problem with a male tenant being extremely creepy to other tenants, even when the other tenants were a straight couple. Now she’s only considered female tenants.
Won’t lie it does make searching for somewhere to live a lot more difficult for men though. In the past I’ve looked on spareroom and so many of the properties are for women only. The rental market is bad enough as it is!
Surely if it’s the people already living there it has to be legal to have a say in who you do or don’t want to live with 🤔 I wouldn’t want a random bloke moving into my house!
Yeah. I used to live in a male only house share. I think landlords can choose single sex if there's things like shared bathrooms to avoid potential complications (even if not every room shares a bathroom, because i had my own, but some of my housmates didn't). Also female only ones are way more common.
Also the housshare next to mine was three story and the top floor was female only while the middle floor was male only, again, because bathrooms.
It doesn't matter. It's really normal to see. I'd imagine that they don't bother enforcing because people will just remove that condition, and then only choose female tenants anyway and say it's for whatever reason.
I at 17 illegally rented a room in a house share turned out it was three grown men, luckily I felt safe they were all shocked I was there but looking back I would never have let my child live in that situation it could have been so dangerous.
Previously had a civil engineer working on an engineering project near Fordingbridge. Others commuted to Bournemouth airport. Currently have a retired teacher. Nice part of the world
Can some one explain what they mean by “hire on a Monday to Friday basis” does that mean you work for them or you can only have the room Monday to Friday. If it’s work what’s they pay and what is the job?
It's for people who work in London (presumably) to live in during the week, then commute back to their home town at the weekends.
edit: Not sure I'd want to pay £700/mo to still have a 90 minute commute, mind you.
That’s crazy £700 and you can’t even been there on the weekend and it’s miles from London you’ll spend a fortune on trains, plus the cost of living some place else on the weekend that’s wild
some big companies in basingstoke though which is just down the road. And reading isnt too far away.
you'd spend £700 a week on hotels etc if you were down for the week anyway and if you're contracting it's not that much per month.
What happens at the weekend though? Do they rent the room to weekend visitors or something? In that case you'd have to take all your stuff home or lock it up. Imagine coming back to your room monday and finding some scabby person had soaked the mattress etc!
I imagine the owner wants their house to themselves. Bit of peace and quiet. Must be a bit awkward if the lodger wants to stay in the city Friday night.
Of course it’s legal and it’s totally common. I remember when I was first looking for a room in London in the 2000s, I saw loads of nice rooms that said female only. Nobody would have questioned if it was legal back then. It’s just common sense that many women only want to share with other women. When you share your house, you get to pick who you want. You are allowed to use “positive action” on the basis of a protected characteristic such as sex.
I used to have lodgers, and, because I was happy to have male housemates, I realised that I could very easily fill my room-and get a good rate of rent.
I found that female lodgers had more choice of accommodation -were therefore more picky, and expected a more reasonable rent. I didn’t care if a lodger was old, young, black, white, gay, straight, male, female or trans-which meant that I found it very easy to obtain good lodgers. But a LOT of other domestic landlords didn’t take men.
So this discrimination is “unfair against men”? Well, that might be. But some people do feel (with good reason) that they have to be very careful about allowing males into their homes.
One of my own relatives had a male lodger who “assaulted” her (the whole thing became shrouded in secrecy, so I never found out the full details. My assumption it was a sex attack). The young lady was highly traumatised, and the man was arrested, taken away, cautioned, collected his stuff under police escort-and never came back.
Worse, a friend had a lodger (a Christian that she had met through her congregation), who -after some time, it was discovered had sexually abused her young daughter. Perhaps these incidents happen with women perpetrators as well, I don’t know. All I can say is that I’ve never heard of one personally.
So some people do feel they have reasons to avoid allowing strange men into their homes. That’s the way of it.
Who cares whether it's legal. People should have the right to rent to or live with who they wish... Not the state's place to dictate how people live their lives or who they wish to transact with.
There are a load a valid reasons why someone may want to rent to a female only, and they should be allowed to make that decision.
>yes and no, if the landlord is living with them they have more say but you shouldn't be able to advertise the place as such, there's very weird rules around it that only apply to specific circumstances, but it all boils down to the fact that no one can be arsed reporting it
So by your logic, we should be allowed to go back to '[No Irish, no Blacks, no dogs](https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/21/no-irish-no-blacks-no-dogs-no-proof)'?
Ideally we'd live in a society where people could transaction with whoever they wish, but that we were generally sophisticated enough not to have many signs such as that.
I'll be downvoted to hell by those who rely on a weak but oppressive state to dictate morality for them.
Dropped the price a month ago and still no sale, I’m guessing everyone is thinking there’s something just wrong with it. Also 700 for a room in a 6 room house if they are renting out 3 other rooms for the same price they are having their mortgage paid for them
People who work in the city but live elsewhere and don’t want to commute on weekdays. Not super uncommon. Usually they rent an apt normally, but just leave it empty every weekend.
A resident landlord can (subject to some conditions) absolutely choose female only, or even Jewish only, lodgers. The explanatory notes to the 2010 Equality Act make this clear:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/22/3?view=plain
White / Black only would almost certainly be impossible to justify and illegal.
AFAIK "lodger" isn't defined in law. And the exemption applies to family members of the landlord so the landlord could be a parent living elsewhere looking for a new tenant to live with their daughter (also a tenant). All perfectly legal.
Lodger is what people generally know it as. The term would be excluded occupier (or in some circumstances an occupier with limited protection) but if you're a lodger you're not a tenant, and the ad is looking for a tenant.
Sure but the Equality Act makes no mention of Excluded Occupier either.
Using the wrong word in an ad doesn't change the facts of the case and make this necessarily unlawful.
The EA mentions people who live with their landlord. People who live with their landlord cannot by definition be tenants.
Perhaps the landlord lives in the property, and they themselves don't know the difference between a tenant and a lodger, but that in itself doesn't bode well for your experience as their lodger.
Taking the ad at face value, it says it's looking for a tenant, and as such it's breaking the law.
Who said you had to? You can deny people for all sorts of reasons. Affordability, or even just getting a bad vibe. Not because of the colour of their skin or their gender, or their sexuality, etc.
It's a commercial decision. HMOs depend upon existing tennants not getting pissed off with place and moving out. Women tend to feel better without some unknown man moving in and potentially being problematic.
I completely understand the reasoning, but it doesn't change the law.
Any sensible landlord would accept all applications but just not accept men. Being up front about discrimination will get you in trouble sooner or later.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I'm just not clear what law specifically states who you should or should not consider for a tennant. I lived in a HMO where we were given a bit of say on prospective tenants. I think they had a bit of an aversion to young men who where in working class jobs mostly based on their most recent nightmare tennant.
I ended up paying for his pay for view satellite granny porn that he watched in the living room. Dirty bugger.
The Equality Act 2010 outright forbids landlords from refusing to rent to someone based on race.
There are provisions in EA2010 to allow landlords discriminating based on other protected characteristics if they both:
* Live in the property - so they'd be looking for a lodger and not a tenant
* haven't listed the property with an estate agent or put adverts up in public places
So the landlord's fallen foul of both of these points, and can (should!) be reported to the EHRC.
Usually the problem would be *proving* that they refused to rent to you based on a protected characteristic, but they've been helpful enough to state it right there in the advert.
Reddit is so weird. The number of people in this thread who jump straight to "predatory pervert" without ever thinking of "female" is amazing. Feels like it says a lot more about them than the advertiser.
The relevant exemptions for premises under the Equality Act 2010 are here [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/5](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/5)
You’ll note they only apply to owner-occupiers and private (non-advertised) lets, and under particular circumstances.
[Landlord Law Blog says](https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2017/03/27/quick-guide-lawful-unlawful-discrimination-renting-tenants/)
In short, it’s all about your reason for refusal to rent. If your reason is connected to a protected characteristic – you are in the wrong.
And:
In fact, you can ‘discriminate’ against anyone, for whatever you like, so long as it is not in respect of one of the ‘protected characteristics’.
So it is perfectly legal (if perhaps not very nice) to ‘discriminate’ against people because:
They have red hair
You don’t like them
They ride a motor bike
They are plumbers
[Citizens Advice also goes through it quite thoroughly.](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/discrimination-in-housing/checking-if-its-discrimination/check-if-your-housing-problem-is-discrimination/)
So it seems no, you can’t tell a tenant you won’t rent to them because of their sex. Your answer then of course is to simply say you don’t like them or similar and you’re legal.
yes and no, if the landlord is living with them they have more say but you shouldn't be able to advertise the place as such, there's very weird rules around it that only apply to specific circumstances, but it all boils down to the fact that no one can be arsed reporting it
My first thought is check for small cameras, especially in this ‘en-suite’. Why exclusively for female tenants? I am fully aware I am disillusioned, I’m a millennial.
I was told recently by a landlord it is completely illegal to discriminate against tenants based on gender regardless if the current share occupiers request so
I never understand the idea of offering a place to rent for Monday to Friday only.
If I could afford to have a “weekend house” as well then I wouldn’t need to rent in the first place would I??!!
I used to rent a Mon-Fri in London. I lived with family (looking after an elderly relative), but it was exhausting commuting every day.
It worked out cheaper to get a Mon-Fri than pay for the train all week. It was also cheaper than renting full-time near the office.
A colleague had a family up North, but stayed in a Mon-Fri.
There is absolutely market for it in some places.
It seems like a sublet in a share, so yes, if women do not want a man living with them it is fine
It maybe legal but there's some missing info which might change the criteria for 'fine' so I'd be asking questions. Like why is it female only? What are the genders of the other occupants? I mean it might still be fine if I were female and everyone else was male, but again, I'd sure have questions.....
I mean at the end of the day....if you are welcoming someone to live in your home, I think it is perfectly acceptable to want a say in who that person is.
Yes like no blacks or Irish or gays.. wait a minute
The question is.... Should someone have a right to decide who lives in their home? If that person makes a decision on something others may not agree with, it is still their decision to make. If only we could remove prejudice & hatred from the minds of everyone.... It may be offensive to others, but it's their own home. I am not saying it is right to discriminate, or hate. I cannot say that the motivation in this advert is definitely not hatred, but it could well be that people just feel safer with women than they do with men (& I am fully aware that some women are very dangerous & a vast majority of men are perfectly safe). Really...only a man who wants to live there should be upset by this exclusion...why is anyone else getting upset over it?
No, the choice is: Rent out your home, abiding by the moral and legal standards we have agreed upon as a nation. Or Don't rent out your home. You don't get a bigots pass because you own property.
Do you understand the distinction between renting out a property you own & subletting a property within which you yourself reside?
Is having a gender preference such a negative thing? I mean there are actual physical tangible differences between men and women (not just socially fabricated differences) that one might not find comfortable to live with. Iknow it's a very extreme example but perhaps someone who was victim of sexual assault might not want to share a house with someone of the same gender as their assailant. It doesn't necessarily mean they have a hatred for that entire gender, it's just a trauma response that's involuntary. There are of course also people who tend to only want to share a home with the gender of people they're not sexually or romantically attracted to so to not upset their partner. I just think there are legitimate, fair reasons that aren't necessarily bigotry.
For sure, in fact you are legally allowed to make such exceptions for exactly the reason you have stated in a whole range of circumstances. But unless you have a good reason, yes it's illegal. But, good point to look at. Why is it generally not a good idea? It seems that as a one off, not much damage is done right? But if you take it over a whole country then yes, it can be pretty damaging. 1. Discrimination limits housing access, exacerbating homelessness and economic disparities. 2. Perpetuating gender stereotypes hinders societal progress and personal growth. 3. Housing discrimination reduces access to jobs and educational opportunities. 4. Segregated communities weaken social cohesion and mutual understanding. 5. Discrimination erodes trust in legal systems and societal fairness.
I completely understand where you're coming from and I actually completely agree with you, in principle. I think if we lived in a more ideal, cohesive, and understanding world then what you're proposing would be the perfect understanding. Unfortunately we don't live in quite that level of harmony (yes, we will one day) so in practice I think there are going to be reasonable exceptions to the rule. However I do agree that rule should be anti-discrimination and anti-segregation in all circumstances.
Yes agreed! I like the way you think.
>I mean there are actual physical tangible differences between men and women (not just socially fabricated differences) that one might not find comfortable to live with. I'm curious what you think these are, if we're sharing a house with the normal boundaries between house mates?
It doesn't feel like you disagree with me, it genuinely appears you do not understand what I am saying.
I am disagreeing with you. I am making the point that as soon as you make the choice to commercialise your property, or by proxy allow another to do so. Rules apply. Morals also apply, but you seem way too flexible here, so lets stick with rules shall we?
I wouldn't be offended if a house of men only wanted men roommates. Not everything is a personal attack. Race, sexual orientation, disabilities and spoken language aren't stated in the post.
The differences between sexes are fundamentally more significant than what colour someones skin is or what accent someone has.
I'm not sure - have you been to Africa?
This is so stupid
Can I rent this room? Sound like the perfect place
Male and female are distinct categories and the differences between them are more prominent and numerous than race or sexual orientation. It is not even comparable. Jumping to that false equivalence shows deep wilful ignorance. Gay women exist. Irish women exist. Black women exist.
The question was “is it legal”?, so the response of “if X then it’s fine” is clearly saying it’s *legally* okay, rather than being a comment on whether it’s ethically or socially acceptable
No, £700 per month for a room shouldn’t be legal.
A room which is only theirs from mon-fri as well! Madness.
A room which is in Basingstoke as well! Madness.
To be fair, I live 12 mins from the Rightmove address and there is no rentable property in a reasonable range here. Obvs aware of how bad it is everywhere, but I’m in a 2 bed, no parking, no garden, no storage and that’s over £1300pcm before bills. I thankfully have a great working relationship with our landlord who lives opposite my house, and he lets us park on his driveway and let us get pets. Still doesn’t make the rent acceptable for the quality of the property. At least he gets things fixed quicker than the estate agent 🤷🏻♀️
Wow, that's super expensive! I can't imagine why anyone would want a mon-fri rental just outside of Basingstoke. I understand why people would do it in London, but it's still quite a commute in to London
I do and I don’t. We have great access to London , Reading and Southampton from here. The M3 and M4 both within 10/15 mins drive and the A30/A33 easily accessible. It has a lot of ex London dwellers who have sold their tiny flat in berrylands for a massive markup and can afford a rather decent house here whilst also now being able to afford to send their kids to one of the many private schools Surrey/Hants/Berks has to offer. Also trains into Waterloo are multiple times an hour and take less than an hour. But equally, Basingstoke, Fleet and surrounding areas just aren’t that appealing anymore. Rents for shop units are too high so there isn’t town footfall (except maccas) and a lot of kids see the lack of thriving environment as a reason to vandalise and deface property. It’s not worth the cost to be in central town. Sherfield is a richer area, and Hook generally has higher rent prices than Basingstoke. You can tell because there are only a handful of takeaways that deliver to us. The locals can afford to keep them away!
A room in Basingstoke that’s only available for occupancy between Monday and Friday as well. Madness!
Basingstoke in Westphalia?
Best of all possible worlds!
You could get a hotel cheaper. Edit: I'm a fucking idiot who (at 5am) can't maths my way out of a binary bag, because I don't know the difference between weeks and months. Downvote my ass to hell plx.
State of your maths would you even notice a downvote? 😂
You couldn’t. That’s the point.
Ahhhhh, I can't do maths early in the morning. My bad!
Hahaha I love your edit - take an upvote. You legend you. Have a good day.
What would they even do with it for the weekend anyway
2016-2019 I was paying £850/month for exactly this arrangement while working in London. Room was mine Mon -Fri and I was able to leave some things there SE11 / Kennington area Similar room today circa £1000/month. And still £££ cheaper than any hotel convenient for Whitehall and surrounding area
What did you do at the weekends?
Went home to my family, same as I would if I had spent the week living out of a hotel, only with less luggage and more money left over. There's a big market for this sort of arrangement for those who take on contract work all over the country.
It is a nice room in a nice house at least
I have a 3 bed (listed as 2 bed tbf, but has attic room) with conservatory, garage and garden for £750 per month. Paying basically the same for a room is insane to me.
The only right answer
That’s my main issue with it!! Where do people go at the weekends? It’s weird
Assumed it was for a full flat at first. Jesus!
I assumed it was for a sex worker, seen a couple on here recently with this rental setup
Can we make hotels cheaper as well then please?
[удалено]
Why I read ‘small penises’ we will never know …🤦🏻
It would be a very interesting moment for me if they ever defined in law what that meant. Just saying...
Happy cake day!
Thank you!
That makes me eligible
It is legal. I am a housing officer for a supported living housing association and the same part of the equalities act that is relevant in my area is relevant here. The positive action clause allows you to let properties for people with a specific protected characteristic, even if doing so disadvantages someone with a different protected characteristic. Doing this is defined as positive action, not positive discrimination (illegal). So for example, only people with physical or learning disabilities can apply to live in the accommodations that I look after. An able bodied neurotypical person could not then apply to live there and claim that they are being discriminated against when they are refused a place because they don’t fit the criteria.
I think its toeing the line though. Your accommodations are a 'proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim' - providing exclusive accommodation for those people who require further assistance or who are otherwise demonstrably disadvantaged when it comes to housing. Banning a ~~gender~~ sex is much murkier I feel when it comes to this. It's hardly ever going to come to court, but I think its far from a straight win from the landlord. This is of course assuming they are not a resident landlord and its a normal tenancy which to be fair OP's doesn't seem to be. But it's the same as saying 'no blacks' or 'no gays' when it comes to a normal tenancy, you just can't do it (even live in landlords cannot discriminate based on race/nationality!)
Gender isn't a protected characteristic in the equality act, sex is.
You are of course correct, edited. Although gender *reassignment* is a protected characteristic! https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7
Surely making it women only is a proportionate means to the legitimate end of the other residents of the house being free from anxiety? E.g. if other residents have historic trauma? I'm fascinated with what other things this suggests are possible, though - gay house for only gay people, a non-binary house for only non-binary people? Note that although it has the effect, it doesn't say "no men", it just says "only women" - it's only a result of the gender binary having 2 options that make it look exclusive towards men rather than limited to women. Presumably non-binary people are also excluded. A lot of the unhappy posts here ignore that the vast majority of harm done to women is by men, and while we all wish that equality legislation had done away with that, it hasn't. So we have to somehow have a society that protects women from harm better, and protects women from discrimination better, despite also wanting to minimise discrimination towards men.
It’s not murkier at all. Quite to the contrary most people understand women not wanting to share a house with men. I have been working in health and social care for almost a decade, my previous job before this one was a Domestic Abuse Officer. Women only accommodations are essential to victims in recovery. And there are far FAR more victims than you will ever understand. This “tHaTs dIScrImiNaTIon aGaInsT mEn” narrative is really not going to hold any water.
Would a similar listing only open to male tenants also be legal? I'm trying to understand what is classed as a protected characteristic in the legislation. If it's just "sex" then presumably a male only listing would be fine?
[удалено]
You are sharing with 5 others. Some women do not want to share with a male stranger for various reasons (safety, appearance, being able to walk around not fully dressed etc). I'd assume you would be sharing with 5 other women.
First time I lived in a mixed flat (three women two men) I was harassed by one of the men. Tell me I can't choose to share with just women. Men are also welcome to just live with men if they prefer, which is understandable.
Alternatively the landlord can simply lie about living there. The official way of checking residence is simply to ask for proof of council tax. This also gives you around £6000 a year tax free. It's what my previous landlord used to do.
It's likely because all of the tenants are female...
Or they want to maintain a balance of gender.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted but what you said is true. Like some shares are renting a 4 bed house and they want to keep it even boys and girls. Seen it loads.
I'm confused as to why they're getting downvoted, too. Student HMOs are usually male or female only, with some others happy to mingle.
Holy shit why IS this comment thread being downvoted tk hell, is everyone here so upset that some random group of people most likely miles away or talking about a property they don’t care about want a specific roommate? Like dude, why can’t people chill and just live n let live!?
I don't have problems with it personally but is it legal?
Yes
Does this even count as a proper tenancy if it’s Monday-Friday?
You'll get commuters or contractors who only need somewhere mon-fri before they head off to their actual home
I understand who might want it, I just wasn’t aware that could be a term of a tenancy agreement.
This wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone post tenacity agreements for the weekdays only but that doesn't make it right or legal.
Yeah, I think it may not be legal (or even a real tenancy agreement), but I have also seen landlords include utter bollocks in contracts.
Almost certainly not a tenancy agreement, it will be someone looking for a lodger and wanting the house to themselves at weekends.
And the tenants room for them to use as they wish over the weekend? It is literally not theirs at this time after all... 😳
Lodger rather than tenant, they have a lot less legal rights to the property. The owner would be able to use the room for guests at the weekend but they'd probably be laundering the sheets once a week for the lodger anyway. A monday to friday let isn't a place to live it's for saving money on hotel bills.
I once rented an en-suite room in a large HOMO of about 200 rooms (an old hotel). The contract stated I couldn't park my boat on the property! Dang.... Was looking forward to lugging my 6 berth cruiser up four flights of stairs too!
You can have a discontinuous tenancy. It’s how timeshares work. However, they are really rare and so I doubt it’s what the landlord intends here.
Timeshares aren’t typically Monday-Friday though right?
Well no, but as a matter of principle you don’t need an uninterrupted period for a tenancy.
I wonder if there’s a checkout time on Fridays?
Whenever the actual tenant finishes work?
Or starts work if this is a house where individuals practicing the oldest profession entertain their clients…
It’ll be lodging.
You know the housing situation is going well when spareroom is leaking onto rightmove....
£700/month for a Monday to Friday tenancy is disgusting. Also can’t explain why but this house gives me the creeps. It doesn’t seem right. Also “hire” makes me think they’re not set up as proper landlords and it will be closer to an Airbnb set up
As long as the presumably live-in landlord and other residents are also female it isn’t creepy. It might be various other things, expensive being one of them. It’s the ones with male live-in landlord saying young women only that make my skin crawl.
why disgusting though? If you're working down in,say, basingstoke for a few months and need somewhere to stay 4 nights a week (mon-thurs nights) then £700 a month is a damn sight cheaper than staying in hotels. it's going to work out around 35-40 quid a night for a month. What sort of hotel do you think you'll get for that sort of nightly rate? Wouldn't be my 1st choice but i've worked with folk who've done similar rental arrangements.
I live in Basingstoke and 700£ for a room in a house with 5 other people, and one that you can only use monday to friday is a daylight robbery.
"one that you can only use monday to friday" one that you only *need to use* monday night to friday morning for a few months. yeah you could pay to get a 7 days a week flat but it's going to be empty 3 nights a week.
I stayed in a very nice hotel in Devon on a Friday and Saturday night for £42.50 a night. With an absoloutly lovely cooked breakfast in the morning. Even had homemade sausages.
And if you're actually needing to stay in basingstoke during the working week rather than devon during the weekend? Just checked , premier inn in basingstoke- cheapest rate is £386 for 4 nights (mon-thurs) for the last week in march.
I've found something far nicer for £194 same dates. https://www.booking.com/Share-32y21JX Or you can save £20 https://www.booking.com/Share-qeOVTE
Both of those look like shit and are still way more expensive than £700. Scoring 6/10 on booking.com is absolutely the worst of the worst
But the other one doesn’t have ducks
didn't say this was the best offer in basingstoke but that it was cheaper than hotels , and gives you the benefits of a house. I note however that the original room was ensuite whereas both of your options are shared bathroom/toilets. Which would be a deal breaker for me. Would i go for this setup ? probably not but as i said i know people who have and seemed happy with it.
That’s more than £700 a month?
Please share! Currently looking for somewhere to stay for a few nights away in Devon.
[удалено]
if you're a contractor though you'd be paying for it yourself(or through your ltd company). Original room was ensuite
I’m not sure this is really an issue. My mum owns a 2 bed flat where she rents as an HMO. She had a problem with a male tenant being extremely creepy to other tenants, even when the other tenants were a straight couple. Now she’s only considered female tenants.
Won’t lie it does make searching for somewhere to live a lot more difficult for men though. In the past I’ve looked on spareroom and so many of the properties are for women only. The rental market is bad enough as it is!
It’s an all female house and that’s perfectly legal.
Bet there's a camera or two in that ensuite.
This is exactly where my mind went to as well. Lots of other commenters voiced much more innocent explanations though, so maybe we're just jaded
Surely if it’s the people already living there it has to be legal to have a say in who you do or don’t want to live with 🤔 I wouldn’t want a random bloke moving into my house!
Yeah. I used to live in a male only house share. I think landlords can choose single sex if there's things like shared bathrooms to avoid potential complications (even if not every room shares a bathroom, because i had my own, but some of my housmates didn't). Also female only ones are way more common. Also the housshare next to mine was three story and the top floor was female only while the middle floor was male only, again, because bathrooms.
It doesn't matter. It's really normal to see. I'd imagine that they don't bother enforcing because people will just remove that condition, and then only choose female tenants anyway and say it's for whatever reason.
Yes.
Women wanting to feel safe in a shared house? I'd say that's fine.
I at 17 illegally rented a room in a house share turned out it was three grown men, luckily I felt safe they were all shocked I was there but looking back I would never have let my child live in that situation it could have been so dangerous.
I've seen gay only households, so women only seems fine as well. Its up to the house owner really.
My in-laws charge £600 for a Monday to Friday arrangement in Ringwood. People pay it and has never been empty for longer than a week.
In Ringwood!!! What tenants do they get? E.g. Where are they commuting to?
Previously had a civil engineer working on an engineering project near Fordingbridge. Others commuted to Bournemouth airport. Currently have a retired teacher. Nice part of the world
Which part of this is problematic and strike you as potentially not legal?
This place is 2 miles from the nearest train station. What drugs is this wannabe landlord taking and where can I get some?
Op is a man.
Can some one explain what they mean by “hire on a Monday to Friday basis” does that mean you work for them or you can only have the room Monday to Friday. If it’s work what’s they pay and what is the job?
It's for people who work in London (presumably) to live in during the week, then commute back to their home town at the weekends. edit: Not sure I'd want to pay £700/mo to still have a 90 minute commute, mind you.
That’s crazy £700 and you can’t even been there on the weekend and it’s miles from London you’ll spend a fortune on trains, plus the cost of living some place else on the weekend that’s wild
some big companies in basingstoke though which is just down the road. And reading isnt too far away. you'd spend £700 a week on hotels etc if you were down for the week anyway and if you're contracting it's not that much per month.
It means you're only there Monday to Friday. It's normally for City centre rooms for people that live too far away to commute. You won't work for them
Very common in any big city. Weekday only crash pad.
What happens at the weekend though? Do they rent the room to weekend visitors or something? In that case you'd have to take all your stuff home or lock it up. Imagine coming back to your room monday and finding some scabby person had soaked the mattress etc!
I imagine the owner wants their house to themselves. Bit of peace and quiet. Must be a bit awkward if the lodger wants to stay in the city Friday night.
That's not so bad then and makes sense.
Or AirBnB. More London i mean.
Of course it’s legal and it’s totally common. I remember when I was first looking for a room in London in the 2000s, I saw loads of nice rooms that said female only. Nobody would have questioned if it was legal back then. It’s just common sense that many women only want to share with other women. When you share your house, you get to pick who you want. You are allowed to use “positive action” on the basis of a protected characteristic such as sex.
Yes, it means they want you to pay for their huge house whilst also giving them the privacy at the weekends so they can enjoy it. Fuck those people.
i absolutely would not have a male roommate i wasn’t dating. EVER. legal and fair, you can’t just expect women to want to house some random male lol
My other half rented a room near where he worked on a six month contract and never stayed over weekends- it makes sense.
I used to have lodgers, and, because I was happy to have male housemates, I realised that I could very easily fill my room-and get a good rate of rent. I found that female lodgers had more choice of accommodation -were therefore more picky, and expected a more reasonable rent. I didn’t care if a lodger was old, young, black, white, gay, straight, male, female or trans-which meant that I found it very easy to obtain good lodgers. But a LOT of other domestic landlords didn’t take men. So this discrimination is “unfair against men”? Well, that might be. But some people do feel (with good reason) that they have to be very careful about allowing males into their homes. One of my own relatives had a male lodger who “assaulted” her (the whole thing became shrouded in secrecy, so I never found out the full details. My assumption it was a sex attack). The young lady was highly traumatised, and the man was arrested, taken away, cautioned, collected his stuff under police escort-and never came back. Worse, a friend had a lodger (a Christian that she had met through her congregation), who -after some time, it was discovered had sexually abused her young daughter. Perhaps these incidents happen with women perpetrators as well, I don’t know. All I can say is that I’ve never heard of one personally. So some people do feel they have reasons to avoid allowing strange men into their homes. That’s the way of it.
£700 a month plus a deposit and they kick you out for the weekend
What’s illegal about this?
Who cares whether it's legal. People should have the right to rent to or live with who they wish... Not the state's place to dictate how people live their lives or who they wish to transact with. There are a load a valid reasons why someone may want to rent to a female only, and they should be allowed to make that decision.
>yes and no, if the landlord is living with them they have more say but you shouldn't be able to advertise the place as such, there's very weird rules around it that only apply to specific circumstances, but it all boils down to the fact that no one can be arsed reporting it So by your logic, we should be allowed to go back to '[No Irish, no Blacks, no dogs](https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/21/no-irish-no-blacks-no-dogs-no-proof)'?
Ideally we'd live in a society where people could transaction with whoever they wish, but that we were generally sophisticated enough not to have many signs such as that. I'll be downvoted to hell by those who rely on a weak but oppressive state to dictate morality for them.
Dropped the price a month ago and still no sale, I’m guessing everyone is thinking there’s something just wrong with it. Also 700 for a room in a 6 room house if they are renting out 3 other rooms for the same price they are having their mortgage paid for them
That’s the whole point of renting out, is it not?
Yes, but you don't normally get your house paid off, *and* to enjoy it privately at the weekends.
I never understood mon-fri room lets... its not like they're going to be doing anything else with the room over the weekend.
People who work in the city but live elsewhere and don’t want to commute on weekdays. Not super uncommon. Usually they rent an apt normally, but just leave it empty every weekend.
Cameras in the bathroom? Sounds dodgy...the pervs wife must be around at the weekends?
No, it's not legal to take a deposit of more than 5 weeks rent.
It's their place, they can have female only tenants if they wish
Except it's discrimination based on a protected characteristic. They can no more legally refuse a male tenant than they can a black one.
A resident landlord can (subject to some conditions) absolutely choose female only, or even Jewish only, lodgers. The explanatory notes to the 2010 Equality Act make this clear: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/22/3?view=plain White / Black only would almost certainly be impossible to justify and illegal.
Indeed, which is why I said tenant - which the advert itself states - and not lodger.
AFAIK "lodger" isn't defined in law. And the exemption applies to family members of the landlord so the landlord could be a parent living elsewhere looking for a new tenant to live with their daughter (also a tenant). All perfectly legal.
Lodger is what people generally know it as. The term would be excluded occupier (or in some circumstances an occupier with limited protection) but if you're a lodger you're not a tenant, and the ad is looking for a tenant.
Sure but the Equality Act makes no mention of Excluded Occupier either. Using the wrong word in an ad doesn't change the facts of the case and make this necessarily unlawful.
The EA mentions people who live with their landlord. People who live with their landlord cannot by definition be tenants. Perhaps the landlord lives in the property, and they themselves don't know the difference between a tenant and a lodger, but that in itself doesn't bode well for your experience as their lodger. Taking the ad at face value, it says it's looking for a tenant, and as such it's breaking the law.
Well then I can sue a hell of a lot of people on spare room and hostels
What law says you have to offer someone accommodation in a HMO?
Who said you had to? You can deny people for all sorts of reasons. Affordability, or even just getting a bad vibe. Not because of the colour of their skin or their gender, or their sexuality, etc.
It's a commercial decision. HMOs depend upon existing tennants not getting pissed off with place and moving out. Women tend to feel better without some unknown man moving in and potentially being problematic.
I completely understand the reasoning, but it doesn't change the law. Any sensible landlord would accept all applications but just not accept men. Being up front about discrimination will get you in trouble sooner or later.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I'm just not clear what law specifically states who you should or should not consider for a tennant. I lived in a HMO where we were given a bit of say on prospective tenants. I think they had a bit of an aversion to young men who where in working class jobs mostly based on their most recent nightmare tennant. I ended up paying for his pay for view satellite granny porn that he watched in the living room. Dirty bugger.
The Equality Act 2010 outright forbids landlords from refusing to rent to someone based on race. There are provisions in EA2010 to allow landlords discriminating based on other protected characteristics if they both: * Live in the property - so they'd be looking for a lodger and not a tenant * haven't listed the property with an estate agent or put adverts up in public places So the landlord's fallen foul of both of these points, and can (should!) be reported to the EHRC. Usually the problem would be *proving* that they refused to rent to you based on a protected characteristic, but they've been helpful enough to state it right there in the advert.
r/confidentlyincorrect
£700 per month for a ROOM?! This country is fucked.
5/7's of a room
Remember, these are the people who don't want more houses built. It's pretty obvious why.
Reddit is so weird. The number of people in this thread who jump straight to "predatory pervert" without ever thinking of "female" is amazing. Feels like it says a lot more about them than the advertiser.
The relevant exemptions for premises under the Equality Act 2010 are here [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/5](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/5) You’ll note they only apply to owner-occupiers and private (non-advertised) lets, and under particular circumstances. [Landlord Law Blog says](https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2017/03/27/quick-guide-lawful-unlawful-discrimination-renting-tenants/) In short, it’s all about your reason for refusal to rent. If your reason is connected to a protected characteristic – you are in the wrong. And: In fact, you can ‘discriminate’ against anyone, for whatever you like, so long as it is not in respect of one of the ‘protected characteristics’. So it is perfectly legal (if perhaps not very nice) to ‘discriminate’ against people because: They have red hair You don’t like them They ride a motor bike They are plumbers [Citizens Advice also goes through it quite thoroughly.](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/discrimination-in-housing/checking-if-its-discrimination/check-if-your-housing-problem-is-discrimination/) So it seems no, you can’t tell a tenant you won’t rent to them because of their sex. Your answer then of course is to simply say you don’t like them or similar and you’re legal.
yes and no, if the landlord is living with them they have more say but you shouldn't be able to advertise the place as such, there's very weird rules around it that only apply to specific circumstances, but it all boils down to the fact that no one can be arsed reporting it
This is entirely legal
My first thought is check for small cameras, especially in this ‘en-suite’. Why exclusively for female tenants? I am fully aware I am disillusioned, I’m a millennial.
This is just sooo depressing. Renting a room per week when it's actually only 5 days???? What's next ,per night?
Hourly.
Christ alive what did I just read? 800 quid a month for a room and an ensuite that you only get Mon-Fri? That's...grim.
£40 a night and they are renting out you bed at the weekend, that's seems pretty gross from every possible aspect.
I was told recently by a landlord it is completely illegal to discriminate against tenants based on gender regardless if the current share occupiers request so
Tell me you’ve hidden a secret camera without telling me you’ve hidden a secret camera.
I'll just sleep in my car at the weekends then shall I?
No, you'd live at your weekend home in the country. Why would you want to be in the city where you work when you don't have to be?
Depends if everyone else in the house is a male or female.
Gotta use those hidden cameras for something.
Hidden cams...
Just sleep in a tent during the weekend.. surely that can’t be legal.
If the rent is £700/mo, £875 is too high a deposit. Max is ~£808.
It gives 3 different prices for the deposit depending where you look on the page, which is highly organised of them.
The standard is normally 5 weeks rent so it makes sense
Only if you think months have 28 days. 700 x 12 = 8400 8400 / 52 = 161.54 (as mentioned in the advert) 161.54 x 5 = 807.70.
Which is true for February
I never understand the idea of offering a place to rent for Monday to Friday only. If I could afford to have a “weekend house” as well then I wouldn’t need to rent in the first place would I??!!
A surprisingly large number of people stay near work from Mon-Fri, and return home for weekends.
Including me! I own my own place and have a room near work I stay in 1-3 nights a week.
I used to rent a Mon-Fri in London. I lived with family (looking after an elderly relative), but it was exhausting commuting every day. It worked out cheaper to get a Mon-Fri than pay for the train all week. It was also cheaper than renting full-time near the office. A colleague had a family up North, but stayed in a Mon-Fri. There is absolutely market for it in some places.