Dear Sir,

I refer to the opinion of attorney Safia Gardener, under the headline “Challenging discrimination in the rental market”, in your issue of May 31, 2023.

The opinion was centred solely on discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1981. However, there is no clause in that Act allowing landlords “with two or fewer units attached to their main house to refuse rental accommodation to those units”.

The word “proviso” or “exception”, rather than “carveout” — which was unsuitable in the context — ought to have been used. Carveout should be reserved for commercial matters where, for example, a company strategically splits off a portion if its business and places it in separate corporate entity.

The original article on which the opinion was based reported that many single mothers felt that they had been discriminated against by potential landlords who refused their tenancy applications. Anyone can feel that he has been discriminated against by another. But can he prove discrimination?

Only a foolish landlord, or one ill-advised by his lawyer, would give to any applicant his reason for refusing the rental application of a prospective tenant. As long as he does not contravene any provision of the Human Rights Act, a landlord may show his property to whomsoever he will without giving any reason to unsuccessful applicants.

EDWARD ISHMAEL KING

St George’s