Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Residential Landlords’ Association consultation response


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

There is no doubt that should the proposals be implemented then they will lead to unintended, but increased, discrimination against migrants, with some landlords refusing to house migrants for fear of falling foul of the new rules.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Colin Yeo

Colin Yeo

Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website.


4 Responses

    1. “The online ‘right to work’ checking service helps employers perform fast and effective ‘right to work’ checks on an employee’s biometric residence permit. This is a free, introductory service for employers until we launch a fully automated service, operated by our commercial partners. When you use that service, our partners will charge you a fee for each check.” It’s clearly another taxation…

  1. I doubt that it would be easy to manage / enforce, the few landlords who might be prosecuted for non compliance would have exit routes such as not being experts in examining status documents and inadequate provision from the authorities to answer queries related.

    That said the practical effect will be that anyone who appears ‘foreign’ will have greater difficulty accessing private lets, be they legal or illegal, like street operations at tube stations, it will glean results (more illegals will be encountered and arrested), but it is a sledgehammer approach and strikes me as back of a fag packet policy.

    1. Couldn’t agree more – except if it works in the same way as for employers it is a ‘strict liability’ civil penalty where there is no way out if the documents were not retained by the landlord for later inspection. Recipe for chaos and discrimination. At least employers have some notions of equal treatment and equality laws, but landlords do not.