Irrespective of what Communism imposes, a property owner has the right to refuse to rent to certain people.
Neville Borg, a Fact-Checker, reached the verdict in his article on TOM that “a property owner cannot legally preclude certain people from renting their property based on their race or ethnicity. But they have a little more flexibility when barring children and pets.”
This verdict was reached after “an advert for a Żebbuġ rental apartment warning that several ethnic minorities need not apply” was posted by Alliance Real Estate. The advert stated “No Pakis, Indians, Arabs and Philippines.”
Neville Borg reached the verdict on a wrong foot. And I can vouch for this because I worked in the property industry for six months not out of choice but because of circumstances. I had gone into this in another past piece.
Borg quoted the law: “A 2007 law, known as the Equal Treatment of Persons Order, prohibits direct or indirect discrimination against people based on their racial or ethnic origin, effectively making it illegal to deny a service (“including housing,” the law says) because of a person’s ethnicity.”
This is what I call “la violenza della legge” – the violence of the law. From experiences that landlords used to share, they used to complain how the law does not protect them but rather protects tenants. Borg is wrong because he assumed that property owners refuse Arabs, Muslims, Pakis and Indians because they are discriminated upon “based on their racial or ethnic origin.” This is false. The reason why these ethnicities are refused by property owners is because of bad experiences that they all went through when they had rented to them. These bad experiences also included complaints from all those living in the same block because of certain tenants of certain ethnicities.
I witnessed properties who were rented to these ethnicities who were turned into a pig sty by them. Complaints from the rest of the block included having a strong smell of curry in the whole block every day which does not go away; or having certain tenants who are so dirty, that the shaft was turned into a home for big cockroaches. These are experiences and stories I witnessed. I’m not making them up.
It wouldn’t make sense for a landlord to refuse a cohort when he would be restricting the pool of tenants for the end goal of making a quick buck. Moreover, certain ethnicities have quite flocked to here in huge amounts, so this refusal does not hold if we take TOM’s article as the oracle of Truth.
Once I visited a property late in the evening. The owner, who owned the whole block, had advised that the Indian tenants he just had, had just left and the apartment had not yet been cleaned. My clients still wanted to have the viewing and so we went for it. Firstly, the stark smell of curry was literally stuck in the walls and in the furniture. The kitchen was worse than a pig sty. One could not even touch the top or else you risked having your hands glued to the droplets of oil that all the kitchen was filled with. The property owner complained that now he needs to change all the kitchen.
The one time deposit that owners are given is not enough to make up for certain damages incurred and to cover the expenses. While it is true that property owners make a quick buck from their property, it is also true that many experience damages that see them having to use the majority of the quick buck they would have earned to refurbish all the property.
I had another visit once in an apartment located in central Malta. The property owner had requested new photos to be uploaded on the website. So I went. The property owner happened to have been making works in it. He told me how he always refurbishes and makes some works in the property after a tenant leaves. He told me he checks for plumbing issues, any electrical work which needs to be fixed, paintings of the walls and change of sofa, curtains and carpets. This property also smelt like curry. Laughingly, he told me and these where his exact words: “Do you believe me if I tell you that this apartment has been vacant for two months. I have cleaned it. Have the windows open every day. I have painted the walls three times and this smell of curry hasn’t gone yet? I mean, it’s unbelievable.”
So Neville Borg the fact-checker and Times of Malta of the fact-checking, should check their facts right before writing fake facts. And the media prefers to show landlords in a bad light rather than the tenants. I will tackle this in another piece.
Not all property owners are greedy or arrogant or “savages.” Some started from nothing. Some are humble. And many are screwed by their tenants. I remember a particular case when an owner was robbed by his tenant. The law didn’t protect him and after filing a police report and going to court, he was given back SOME of the furniture that the tenant had robbed him in the middle of the night which he had to pick up FROM THE PAVEMENT in front of a police station!
It is clear that these man-made laws create injustices.
On the other hand, there’s no secret that some landlords have been consumed by this market. Prices are high. The Maltese people who need to rent are finding it very hard to find cheap, affordable property.
Neville Borg and Times of Malta failed to include that many property owners do not accept Maltese tenants. Yes, they don’t accept their own natives. The reason, but, is not justifiable. Being that Malta is small and everybody knows each other, property owners refuse Maltese tenants. I let the readers reach their conclusions. This is what I find truly unfair. The Maltese natives should be the ones who benefit first and be accommodated. The law should make it clear that Maltese tenants are to be the ones who are given a preference because truly, it is the Maltese people here who are being discriminated upon for no valid reason but a reason which is, in this case, founded on discrimination.
But for Neville Borg and Times of Malta, it is fine to replace the indigenous people with invaders.
Let us not forget that property has become so expensive to afford for the Maltese people because of the invasion of foreigners who can rent a property at any price either because they can afford it or because they are in threes or fours or more and can share. I witnessed this. The property market has become one for people with full wallets and empty crania – perhaps. You will own nothing, they said, and decided that you will be happy.
Moreover, it is unfair that legally, property owners are allowed more flexibility when it comes to allowing tenants with children and pets which in itself, is then discriminative to tenants with children and pets which is definitely social injustice, leading many pet owners and families to find it very hard to find a rental. No wonder I keep on confirming that this is “la violenza della legge” – the violence of the law.
Irrespective of what Communism imposes, property owners have a right to refuse to rent to certain people because of past experiences when such certain people procured extensive damages to their property. I can assure you that property owners refuse Pakis, Muslims, Arabs, Indians and Philippines because of this reason. It has nothing to do with origin and ethnicity. So, property owners are not breaking the law.
On the other hand, I hope that this property market grows a heart – a market that accepts Maltese people; a market which accepts pets and children; a market which lowers the prices so that people from all walks of life can afford it, especially those who are renting alone, or those who have just separated or divorced and need somewhere where to stay. They suffer, I can assure you.
If not, the homeless will increase.
If not, the dignity of a human being will continue to be slowly being eaten away.