Booking holiday home for a group of young men

[aniolare]

The Equality Act (2010) makes it a criminal offence to discriminate on grounds of age, gender, sex, disability, marital status, maternity status, race, sexual orientation, or belief. Phoning to ask confirm it's okay to be young or male is legally equivalent to phoning to ask permission to be black or Jewish. You can book accommodation online and in law that should be that, and I think most or all hosts will be fine. I don't think you'll find any problems of discrimination down the line with any owner, but if somehow you do you are under no obligation, legally or morally, to acquiesce to it.

Irritatingly the Age discrimination aspect of the Equality Act comes with a large number of caveats. The safety and wellbeing of other customers or the promotion of a "family atmosphere" could be seen as a lawful reason to ban large groups of young people on the basis that they are more likely to be disruptive, so long as the ban was proportionate.

On sex/gender based discrimination there are fewer caveats. Banning single gender groups, or only all male groups though would be more problematic. Unless you were running for example a female only campsite, to ban men in a situation where women would be allowed would be an act of direct discrimination that it'd be hard to justify.

If a rule banning all male groups was to inadvertently ban two same sex couples from staying, while two straight couples would be permitted then that's potentially discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, albeit indirectly. Forcing them to disclose their relationship for an "exception" to the rules wouldn't really be acceptable either.

If I were a campsite owner then it's something I'd be very careful about.

[Marty_JG]

Irritatingly the Age discrimination aspect of the Equality Act comes with a large number of caveats. The safety and wellbeing of other customers or the promotion of a "family atmosphere" could be seen as a lawful reason to ban large groups of young people on the basis that they are more likely to be disruptive, so long as the ban was proportionate.

I've looked through the act and cannot for the life of me find these exceptions. There is talk in sports, for example, so an organisation can reuse to let a 70 year old boxer fight a 20 year old, but banning an entire age group because of potential disruption? I can't find that caveat or find an interpretation that leads to it. I can't find "atmosphere" in there, I know that you putting it quotes doesn't mean it has to be quoted (but a paraphrase) but if so I'd love to know where exactly in the act you're paraphrasing. Again "disruption" isn't necessarily a quote but a reading/paraphrase, but again I'd like to know the section you're thinking of in terms of disruption being a lawful reason to ignore primary, criminal, legislation.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/data.pdf

[Fractral]

Thanks for the responses all - didn't mean to start an argument but it's good to know I'm unlikely to face issues. We had some trouble this summer with a campsite cancelling our booking at very short notice and don't want to deal with that sort of stress again!

[JonetCol]

They'd be better off with "no idiots!"

... / bampots / football colours / trainers / tracksuits / students / stag or hen groups / parties.

There's a large range of perfectly legal euphemisms...

If there's resistance it's probably because the owner fears a stag party group. A friend has a holiday let cleaning business and her problems tend to be from more affluent professional couples/families rather than single sex groups. Regardless, you may need to act soon as Skye isn't easy to find a cottage at the best of times and I suspect there'll be another post lockdown surge (should.lockdown ease that is).

[aniolare]

Irritatingly the Age discrimination aspect of the Equality Act comes with a large number of caveats. The safety and wellbeing of other customers or the promotion of a "family atmosphere" could be seen as a lawful reason to ban large groups of young people on the basis that they are more likely to be disruptive, so long as the ban was proportionate.

I've looked through the act and cannot for the life of me find these exceptions. There is talk in sports, for example, so an organisation can reuse to let a 70 year old boxer fight a 20 year old, but banning an entire age group because of potential disruption? I can't find that caveat or find an interpretation that leads to it. I can't find "atmosphere" in there, I know that you putting it quotes doesn't mean it has to be quoted (but a paraphrase) but if so I'd love to know where exactly in the act you're paraphrasing. Again "disruption" isn't necessarily a quote but a reading/paraphrase, but again I'd like to know the section you're thinking of in terms of disruption being a lawful reason to ignore primary, criminal, legislation.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/data.pdf

See the EHRC guidance on Age discrimination and the Equality Act(s)
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/age-discrimination

There's provision for age discrimination on the basis of "objective justification" where it can be demonstrated that there is a good reason for discrimination. For example hire car operators typically won't rent cars to 17 year old new drivers, and this is legal since it is recognised that the risk that the car would be damaged or destroyed by young drivers is considerable.

I presume that campsite owners would argue that there is an objective justification for banning large groups of young people. I'd imagine they'd argue that large groups of young people would be likely to be loud and disruptive or be likely to cause damage to the site. For instance a family campsite may argue that groups of young people are likely to be loud, especially late at night, and may disturb people who came for a quieter atmosphere. Hence banning large groups of young people is a reasonable measure to avoid disrupting their other customers and protecting their business.

They could offer some other defences too, perhaps that they are not discriminating against young people in general, only in large groups.

In any case, in most cases it's a civil law matter, not criminal. If someone feels they are being discriminated against they can put in a claim through the courts. Whether the above argument would stand up to legal scrutiny - I don't know.

[davekeiller]

The equality act is over 300 pages long, and there are some exceptions to the general prohibition of discrimination in certain circumstances.
Generally, these are clearly justifiable and uncontroversial. For instance, if a job requires someone to drive a vehicle then it's fairly obvious that it wouldn't be safe to allow a blind person to do that job. It's also perfectly legal to prevent men from entering a women's changing room in order to safeguard the privacy and dignity of the women using it.

If a provider of holiday accommodation were to have a policy of no all male groups, or no single sex groups then they could be challenged in the courts. If that happened, then the accommodation provider would have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that their policy didn't constitute illegal discrimination. However, it might be possible to argue that such a policy was proportionate and justified. Until that happens, we can't definitively say that it's always illegal to have such a policy.

Having said that, if places have policies like that then that indicates to me that there have been problems with antisocial behaviour and/or the owner isn't very welcoming so I'd probably take it as a warning sign and go elsewhere. In general, antisocial behaviour is less of a problem the further from the central belt you are. Anywhere on the west coast north of about Glen Coe is generally far enough from the central belt that they don't get problems.

[Sgurr]

Have you thought of booking in a bunkhouse? Forest Way near Ullapool is excellent. He says for groups of more than 6 people you have exclusive use. Maybe if you paid for an extra person, or took an extra person, you could do this. Otherwise book 2 rooms and have the use of the kitchen https://www.forestway.co.uk/ I don't think Ian would discriminate because you are young, though, like anyone else, he would get annoyed if you trash the place.

[Giant Stoneater]

The Equality Act (2010) makes it a criminal offence to discriminate on grounds of age, gender, sex, disability, marital status, maternity status, race, sexual orientation, or belief. Phoning to ask confirm it's okay to be young or male is legally equivalent to phoning to ask permission to be black or Jewish. You can book accommodation online and in law that should be that, and I think most or all hosts will be fine. I don't think you'll find any problems of discrimination down the line with any owner, but if somehow you do you are under no obligation, legally or morally, to acquiesce to it.

Irritatingly the Age discrimination aspect of the Equality Act comes with a large number of caveats. The safety and wellbeing of other customers or the promotion of a "family atmosphere" could be seen as a lawful reason to ban large groups of young people on the basis that they are more likely to be disruptive, so long as the ban was proportionate.

On sex/gender based discrimination there are fewer caveats. Banning single gender groups, or only all male groups though would be more problematic. Unless you were running for example a female only campsite, to ban men in a situation where women would be allowed would be an act of direct discrimination that it'd be hard to justify.

If a rule banning all male groups was to inadvertently ban two same sex couples from staying, while two straight couples would be permitted then that's potentially discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, albeit indirectly. Forcing them to disclose their relationship for an "exception" to the rules wouldn't really be acceptable either.

If I were a campsite owner then it's something I'd be very careful about.

Age discrimination laws do not work in the instance of over 60s free bus travel,how come someone age 60, working,say earning £40,000 gets free bus travel but someone under that age limit with the same criteria does not get free bus travel,it does not stack up.

[ScotFinn65]

In my opinion, most of the renter's issues will not be related to single sex group or based on age is gender discrimination.

Most of the replies seem to focus on anti discrimination legislation, when the issue to likely to be of a perception of damage to property.

As a cottage renter, my biggest concerns are with people it treating the property with respect and, unfortunately, this is often related to stag or gen parties which are invariably single sex.

The renter's concerns are most likely to be related to a preconception that the dirty campers are moving inside for a stag party (well founded or not, l don't judge).

In order to alleviate those concerns, the original poster may consider what he could do to impact that perception e.g. visit the renter in person to set up the rental, show what type of person you really are, offer to leave a larger deposit as you understand the concern ( offer is appreciated but not usually taken).

Good luck, l hope you get what you're looking for

[Fractral]

Forest Way near Ullapool is excellent.

I've stayed there before and totally agree! It's one of the nicest small bunkhouses I've visited. There were 8 of us and we had exclusive use of the place for a long weekend winter walking. I did consider it for this trip, purely because it would be feasible to get it for just us. Unfortunately there's not a lot of interesting accessible scrambling in the area (there's sod all chance of getting the group to walk into fisherfield); we were looking mainly at Torridon or Skye for that reason.

[Sgurr]

Have you thought of Carmore Lodge? Then you are right on the doorstep of the Fisherfield. Might be a bit beyond your budget, but is GREAT https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=89483