1. Different treatment of rental home seekers by real estate agencies in Belgium
Katleen Van den Broeck & Kristof Heylen
Research Institute for Work and Society
HIVA-KU Leuven, Belgium
ENHR Conference Edinburgh,
1-4 July 2014

2. Overview presentation
Belgian context :
framework to ensure access to decent housing for all
selection of renters in the private rental market
discrimination
Literature & methodology
Research question & design
Results
Discussion

3. Context: framework to ensure housing for all
Housing Codes
Housing is a regional competence
Each of the 3 regions has its own Housing Code protecting the right to decent living for all
Explicit focus on providing housing to low income HHs/HHs most in need (Fl&W)
Equal treatment is advocated incl. rules of the anti-discrimination laws (Bxl)

4. Context: framework to ensure housing for all
Antidiscrimination laws (list of criteria)
Discrimination (at own initiative or on request) or requiring someone to discriminate is forbidden
Law offers victims of discrimination the opportunity to take juridical action for a civil court
Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (now: Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities)
Discrimination hot lines

5. Context: selection of private renters
Selection needs to be based on objective justification:
when the goal is legitimate (for example the timely receiving of monthly rent payments) and
the means to reach the goal are appropriate and necessary (checking solvency situations)
Allowed: making a choice of a renter based on the level of resources (home-owner is allowed to choose the candidate whom he considers the best able to pay the rent and maintain the property)
Not allowed: choosing or not choosing a candidate based either on prejudices or on irrelevant characteristics (this is statistical or taste-based discrimination (eg. not level but only using source of income)
Checking solvency situations: some restrictions by advice from Privacy Commission (2009)

6. Context: selection of private renters
Professional Institute of Real estate agents and the Centre for the Equality of Opportunities and Opposition to Racism have developed a questionnaire respecting the antidiscrimination and privacy laws
The answers to this questionnaire should allow the landlord to make a non-discriminatory choice out of the interested candidates who have filled out this questionnaire
In the deontological code of the real estate agents (compulsory members of the Professional Institute of Real estate agents) the anti-discrimination laws are mentioned explicitly
If real estate agents do not respect the rules of the code they risk a disciplinary punishment which can take the form of a warning, a reproach, a suspension or a cancellation

7. Context: discrimination
Equal access should be secured by the existing codes and laws and punishment threats
But reports (city hotlines/Centre for equal opportunities and opposition to racism) prove it still exists
- Negotiate a solution
- Court
City hotlines show discrimination in private rental market important share of discrimination reports
Discrimination grounds: reports suggest that people with limited fiancial resources and non-Belgian background face (or report) discrimination most

8. Context: discrimination
Ethnic discrimination in the housing market has been researched (and confirmed) in Belgium
Cities Antwerp and Ghent –only male (12%)
Private owners in Belgium (see later)

9. Literature & methodology
Ethnic discrimination found in many other countries
UK, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Greece, US, Canada
Other discrimination grounds investigated in the private rental market (not in Belgium):
Handicap, family situation (single parents), type of income source, sexual orientation

10. Literature & methodology
Methodology typically used to detect (level of) discrimination (practices):
Situation tests (audits) & correspondence tests
Matched teams only differing by discrimination ground
Personal or telephone contact or by
Problem situation tests: uncontrolled characteristics possibly influence the landlord’s choice
Recently more approaches
But beyond “contact phase”: visit the vacant dwelling => only personal approach possible

11. Research question & design
Given Housing Codes, antidiscrimination laws and Code of Conduct real estate agencies
Are real estate agencies willing to avoid certain groups of rental home seekers when prompted by landlords?
How do they do this (strategies used)?

12. Research question & design
Real estate agencies form the link between landlord and renter
Design: dual methodology (qualitative)
Supply-side approach (landlord)
Demand-side approach (rental home seeker)

13. Research design
Supply-side approach: willingness to avoid certain groups
Situation: A fictitious “new” landlord approaches the real estate agency offering to put his apartment for rent via them but with discriminatory request
600 real estate agencies called (200 per region)
100 phone calls per profile per region
June 2013
Request to avoid “foreigners” or “unemployed”
Note: source of income (discrimination) versus level of income (selection)

14. Research design
2) Demand-side approach: mystery visits by rental home seekers
4 discrimination grounds:
Ethnicity: partly with profile similar to control group/partly divergent (w.r.t. clothing, but no religious connotations)
Low financial means: partly recently unemployed/partly profession suggestion lower income (call centre employee)
Handicap: blind/vision impaired person
Gender+financial means (single mother with one-year old)
Situation tests: pairs of ‘mystery visitors’

15. Research design
2) Demand-side approach: mystery visits by rental home seekers
Advertisements for vacant dwellings from popular real estate websites: Immoweb & Vlan (June 2013)
Around 30 tests per discrimination ground (spread evenly over regions); 124 tests (x 2 testers)
Step 1: phone call
Step 2: visit (if both testers can arrange a visit on the same day)
Note: not representative for the population of rentals via real estate population but indicative of willingness to avoid groups & how (qualitative design)

16. Results part 1: Willingness to discriminate
Results of the mystery calls
Is it possible to avoid …?
Foreigners
% (n=300)
Unemployed
Yes
42,3
61,3 No
14,0
7,3
No, landlord has final choice (list)
34,0
24,3
Other
9,7
7,1

17. Results part 1: Willingness to discriminate
“Foreigners”
Knowledge of the law
But willingness to discriminate exists from first contact (telephone or recognition via name or accent)
Sometimes visit pro forma
“it is compulsory to allow everyone a visit”
Some candidates will not be put on the list offered to landlord
Explanation: better candidate available or a family member wants to rent
Putting on stand-by (e.g. via “option taken on the apartment”)
Discouragement strategies
Come by the real estate office
Requesting additional documents
More strict rental conditions
Higher number of months of payslips
Requesting family composition proof (at commune)
Certificate of good conduct
But some defend “foreigners”: we do not select on the basis of background/nationality/colour, only solvency!

18. Results part 1: Willingness to discriminate
Unemployed
Discrimination on the basis of source of income
Social assistance, disability benefit
“one has to have a fixed job”
No appointment => deselection on the phone
Practices that possibly affect privacy
Tax letters
Via employer information on payslips: contacting employer
Other:
Starting with short-term rental contracts
Mentioning doubtsome candidacy at visit or mentioning that the owner prefers someone who works
But solution can be: guarantor co-signing the contract
Sometimes the group is defended: “this is discrimination” or “some unemployed renters pay more timely than some of the employed renters”

19. Results part 2: Demand-side approach: ‘mystery visits’
Ethnicity
Note: these observations were not recorded by control group
Request at phonecall to bring certain documents to the visit or fax them in beforehand
At phonecall using false pretences “one is looking for older renters”
Arrange an appointment but cancelling afterwards (under false pretences)
Showing less motivation/enthusiasm during visit
Discourage a candidate

20. Results part 2: Demand-side approach: ‘mystery visits’
Gender&financial means
No discrimination at first telephone contact
No discrimination during phonecall and visit
Creating and announcing a way out (e.g. an option has been taken)
Larger insecurity and more testing of the ability to pay
“Reservation costs”

21. Results part 2: Demand-side approach: ‘mystery visits’
Handicap
Discrimination at first telephone contact: suggest to find another vacant dwelling or demanding a guarantor (note: the blind tester has the same income and profession as the control tester)
Cancelling appointment (because dwelling already rented out –but not for control tester)
Discouragement: mentioning extra costs
At visit: demanding a guarantor

22. Results part 2: Demand-side approach: ‘mystery visits’
Low financial means
Direct discrimination on the phone: no payslips= no appointment
Visits in (larger) groups
Extra information required: family composition, higher number of payslips, recommendation former landlord
Discouragement via attitude and signalling by real estate agent
Demanding to come by the office with necessary documents
Reservation costs (going from 100 to 250€)

23. Discussion
Overview (de)selection strategies supply-side approach (landlords)
Strategies
Foreigners
Unemployed persons
Visit refusal from first contact x
Use false pretences
Put on stand-by
Discouragement
Offer risk-reducing solutions
Defending/Mentioning discrimination

24. Moroccan/ Turkish candidates Low- income candidates
Discussion
Overview (de)selection strategies demand-side approach (rental home seekers)
Strategies
Moroccan/ Turkish candidates
Single mothers
Blind candidates
Low- income candidates
Visit refusal from first contact-direct by tested characteristic
(x)  x
Visit refusal from first contact-indirect
Visit cancelled
Use false pretences
Put on stand-by/use as second-best option
Discouragement
Formal conditions of the visit
(x)
Attitude of real estate agent
Need to provide more “proof” of ability to pay
Offer risk-reducing solutions
Reservation fee/deposit

25. Discussion
Real estate agencies are aware of the fact that some selection strategies are discriminatory
But they use “shortcuts”
Discriminatory selection strategies by real estate agencies:
From first contact (direct or indirect),
Between contact and visit,
During/after visit
Different strategies applied to different groups
Discrimination percentages found in quantitative phone/mail studies are lower bound
Especially low financial means

26. Discussion
Despite existence of antidiscrimination laws, included in code of conduct of professional institute of real estate agencies, chance of being caught and punished => willingness to discriminate exists, implemented sometimes even directly at first contact
More sensitisation? More control? Type of punishment? More conformity/rules in selection process?
Example: transparent non-discrimination policy in real estate agency X