Britain’s biggest and arguably most contentious buy-to-let landlord, who recently banned ‘coloured people’ from renting any of his properties has suggested a specialist insurance company should be set up to deal with cases where tenants leave homes smelling of curry.
Having already barred battered wives and plumbers from occupying his homes, Wilson, who runs a property empire in Kent alongside his wife Judith, caused further controversy last month by insisting that he would not allow Indian and Pakistani tenants to rent his properties because ‘they make them smell of curry’.
The landlord, who is currently facing legal action from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) over his controversial letting policy, denies accusations of racism, insisting his decision is purely economical after spending thousands of pounds removing the smell of curry from one of his properties.
He is now calling for an insurance policy to be in place to cover him in such situations in the future.
Wilson told Kentnews.co.uk: “If someone punches a wall and leaves a dent, you can take a photograph to prove it.
“How do you prove there is a smell? It’s impossible to prove because they might have got so used to the smell that they don’t notice it.
“The thing is, a curry smell is not malicious damage - we are insured for someone smashing the house up but not for that.
“If they are cooking curry they are not doing it maliciously but they are ‘injuring’ the house.
“If the EHRC set up their own insurance company to underwrite claims there would be no problem.
“If that had been in place I would not have made those comments.
“These are all economic judgements. It costs as much for a new carpet as you are achieving in rent for six months.”
Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Pointless calling this guy a racist, the point is he is discriminating. Can't do that, but by the same token, he should be able to claim for the cost if a tenant has not cleaned sufficiently enough to remove smells. What if it was animal smells? Good point about evidence though, there should be clear guidance form the ADR bods on what is clearly a common problem.
Please login to comment