'No DSS' found to be discriminatory

[HorseFlyOfExtraordinaryLength]

letting agents and landlords are discriminating against women
Having had direct experience of this I am very pleased to hear that it is not legal and letting agents should not be using this reason to say no to prospective tenants.
Moreover lenders shouldn't be restricting buy to let mortgages.
Whether it actually has any effect on the ground is yet to be seen

Rent is the first thing I'd make sure is paid out of my wage (I work and get tax credits)
The rent comes out of my wage not my top up

our mortgage wont allow us to rent to DSS. Also we had a very bad experience with someone recently who should have been on DSS and therefore in theory should have been paying us some rent (whether she was and was withholding it or was declined, i never got to the bottom of because dealing with the DWP was such a nightmare).

From a practical viewpoint, if someone trashes the house and leaves owing me 10k i would like some way of getting that back. With a DSS claimant that is highly unlikely

Agree I always think of my wage as covering my rent.
What are people in our situation supposed to do? How should we put a roof over our children's heads? The threat of homelessness is always there lurking in the background. Anything which lessens that fear is good.

Also, while the 'no dss' thing does unfortunately lump together different types of people, if you got rid of it, how would you differentiate between decent people on benefits and scummy druggie layabouts who are also on benefits? Would you just say that working people (who are getting topped up with benefits) are okay but not the unemployed? (Who might be disabled or have a really good reason to not work). Or they might be sksnky people who will trash your house and you have no way of making them pay for it.
At least when someone is working, you can get references and guarantors if necessary.

Anyone can trash your house and leave you 10k in debt though can't they.
I have a guarantor doesn't that mean they would cover some of your losses?

It won’t make a difference as letting agents usually require bank statements and proof of earnings before they’ll let a property to someone. They can easily still not let to people on benefits. I’m a landlady and don’t let to people on benefits or students after being burned twice. Both times tenants caused around 4K of damage (5 times the amount of the bond), and when I spent money taking them to court for damages I got given fuck all because they didn’t work and didn’t have money to give me. There’s a reason landlords don’t like dss

Horsefly anyone can trash your house, but you can only get damages back if they’re working

Landlords what do you think of the ruling that it was discriminatory and discriminated predominantly against single mothers?
What did you make of the women featured as examples?

Horsefly - if they are working and have spare cash after key outgoings, i can do an attachment to earnings order. I think a lot of tenants know this so they are less liable to trash the place.

Dont know much about guarantors....i guess thats the case. In which case that would work for me....except i cant due to my mortgage

Well just because people work doesn't necessarily mean they'll have a guarantor
I consider myself very very lucky that I have a guarantor as my dad was in the higher earning sector when he worked he's retired now so that's how I've got a guarantor. I know it's horrible thing to say and think about but what about if they're not here anymore?
If I asked my step brother or sister they all probably earn enough but they wouldn't want to be put in that position! Neither would I want to put them in it! And I'm not close to them either!
If I let myself think about it it scares me to death

The BTL lending situation is changing, slowly. Some providers haver removed the no DSS provision, but not all.

Industry press have been promoting the ones who have changed and there seems to be a wind change. Many LLs have argued against this for years. BUT with the UC system as it is now it is not at all unlikely that many will, as pps have said, contiue to say no to tenants already claiming because that system is so unwieldy it leaves LLs virtually unprotected against loss.

Again, it's a complaint to aim at the government. They are the ones who are in charge of the issue that causes the problems!

Yes, Herpesfreesince03 I work. I think we're talking about working people here. Those who are on tax credits. Single mothers who work.

That's why it was helpful with the old system where they could accept somebody in receipt of tax credits, childcare and a small amount of HB, or disability, but not somebody on job seekers allowance, because they were all called different things. Also with legacy benefits the money all came from different places. So even if somebodies disability benefits got stopped for some reason, if it was only temporary their housing benefit would still be being paid and tax credits or ESA/income support. Now if UC don't pay you, your not getting anything, child benefit or PIP but otherwise nothing. And everybody is now on UC whether that's for £50 towards their childcare or their full living costs. The benefit cap has affected things a lot too. It used to be that housing benefit changed according to area so in more expensive areas they would pay more. Now if you hit the cap you could end up with a massive shortfall. The numbers don't add up so of course people on those benefits struggle to pay the rent. They are set up to fail and a gamble for the LL who just wants to know the money will be paid. And then you end up with families living in emergency housing/bnb for years because our social housing has all been sold off. It is an attack on poor single parents (predominantly mothers) from every side

single mothers are a mixed bag. we have had one wonderful lady who was in the police. kept the place nice and paid rent on time. the other one (who was in a couple when we initially rented to them) was a nightmare. Once the man moved out she stopped paying rent and the place went from near perfect to a nightmare. it would have been cheaper to have left it empty for a year than to have rented to her. Place had to be gutted and we had to take her through the courts.

this has put me off renting to single mothers unless they have really good jobs. also made me more careful about renting to anyone

this has put me off renting to single mothers unless they have really good jobs

wow. Based on one woman. That is so incredibly judgemental.

i think if the benefit could be paid directly to the LL from the start that would help. I know in theory the DWP will do this once the tenant is behind in rent, but practically this didnt happen for us and who wants a tenant behind in rent anyway?

@dreamingofsun

That doesn't even make sense. You let to a single mother who was a wonderful tenant. Then you let to a couple who had a relationship breakdown and the woman stayed and caused damage.
Therefore renting to the single mother was a much better bet than renting to the couple.

It's difficult because as others have mentioned, landlords are restricted to an extent by what mortgage providers and insurance companies will permit. My landlords insurance has quite stringent restrictions around the tenants ability to pay, but doesn't specifically prohibit benefits claimants. I pay a higher premium for that though. The focus needs to be on pushing lenders and insurers to move away from discriminatory restrictions, as well as pushing landlords to do the same.

i think if the benefit could be paid directly to the LL from the start that would help

this i do agree with. Its better for the LL, and tbh for the tenant because their rent is just paid, whatever's left is left and that's it.

Thinking about this makes me wonder about those women who feel they cannot leave a relationship because they won't be able to get housing.

@katmarie but there are mortgages and insurance companies who do cover let to DSS
So that tells me that people have not chosen to go with them

What about those of us whose 'benefits' i.e. tax credits do not cover the rent but merely 'top up' our income. Having that paid directly to a LL wouldn't make sense.

wow. Based on one woman. That is so incredibly judgemental. No! Given the amount of money that can be lost it's more like profiling.. the sort Actuaries do.

A rental property is a business. If you identify a risk factor to the profit margin you eliminate it. That's what BTL mortgage lenders have done. It is what individual LLs do, usually AFTER they have been bitten by one bad benefit claining tenant! The former may be changing, the latter will not!

If this has been ruled against in a court do lenders have the right to limit their BTL offers?

If the government paid all rent benefits direct to landlord and guaranteed rent, 90% of these issues with go away.

There could also be a new type of negative credit market like a CCJ for rent payments, so if you don't pay, you then have your credit showing it, so other landlords won't touch you

I'd also make lenders offer 100% mortgages if a tenant had 3 years paying rent on time with no issues, as it shows they're responsible and could pay a mortgage. Would then reduce the demand for private rentals