'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

If this has been ruled against in a court do lenders have the right to limit their BTL offers? Not immediately. It will have to filter through other legal channels first. But it should speed up the changes already in motion.

A rental property is a business
Can businesses discriminate against single mothers? Women?

But it's not discriminatory against single mothers. They're a large part of the affected group but it's not discrimination, it's coincidental.

Are you unable to see that this isn't the landlord's fault most of the time?

Where I work we cover about who might be classed as a vulnerable person and part of that training is telling you to bear that in mind and treat them accordingly and do the best by them and that's a business

If the government paid all rent benefits direct to landlord and guaranteed rent, 90% of these issues with go away. This was removed so as not to infantilise claimants. They have the right to hold 100% of their benefits, they are theirs to have and dispose of as they see fit.

Not so long ago you'd read threads here suggesting shopping vouchers for benefit claimants, to ensure they bought food to feed themselves, their kids. That was always seen as dehumanising and outrageous.

I'm on the fence. My neighbour is long term unemployed. They got really behind in their rent because they never bothered adjusting their HB claims when the council house rent inevitably went up each year. Their reasoning? "It wasn't their bloody job." They saw the HA and the HB office as the same and "if they want the money they need to get it themselves!"
They never had much to do with their own rent so it wasn't seen as their issue to sort. When it came to a head an organisation were sent round to help them and they were given a large payment to get back on track. They spent it because they were skint on benefits. The outstanding rent is still owed.
It's not the case for all claimants of course and all situations are different but to me, having to earn your own money to make the rent and the threat of attachment of earnings or having nowhere to live/moving to temporary housing when you need to be able to still get to work every day might make one more likely to make rent a priority perhaps?

stylish - i think you have some good points there. if bad tenants were made easier to spot and the eviction process was speeded up then LL's would not be so nervous about who they lend to. I think in theory there is a CCJ for rent payments, but in practise a lot of LLs do section 21s which are quicker to remove the tenant so it doesnt necessarily show on their credit ratings.

Can businesses discriminate against single mothers? Women? I don't think you are reading all of my osts, or some others. See StylishMummy for example.

I have a large rental portfolio all held mortgage free so I have no restrictions on whom I rent to apart from those I impose myself. What I do have is 20 years' experience of renting and am pretty good at selecting likely non payers. My experience has been that when the benefit system was changed to housing benefit being paid to tenant rather than directly to landlord we saw a big deterioration in tenants paying on time or at all. Despite large arrears the council advises them on how to make their eviction as difficult as possible and it is costly. For that reason I don't take people on benefits unless there are other compelling reasons which there sometimes are. People with young children often trash the place so they aren't high up my list. And finally, and this will get me roasted but is based on lots of experience, people from the African community have been hands down the worst tenants in terms of damage, non-payment, difficulty to evict, sub letting, lying on applications, stealing goods...a few do really make it harder for the many.

curious - but surely if the government is paying a claimant money for housing it should be spent on housing and not alcohol/drugs or whatever my previous tenant spent it on? If a person isnt mature enough to want to keep a roof over their head then wouldnt it be better to take that responsibility away from them, rather than end up having them and their kids evicted?

My landlord insurance won’t insure for housing benefit/UC so I will still choose to only let to employed people who can pass the affordability check.
I don’t use an agent and we heavily filter applications. Last time I advertised I got over 200 requests in 48hrs. I can afford to be picky.
I take pets though, lots don’t!

I had this problem. It was only when my lovely mum offered to pay double deposit that I was allowed to rent the property. I've been here 10 years now.

I still claim some HB but it only makes up about 20% of my rent. The rest is paid via my wages.

My LA seems to think it in this area a 2 bed place will rent at £550 per month but the rents are atleast £200 per month more than that. There is a huge disparity between them and thats were benefit claimants get stuck.

@tiggertogger I have had the same experience as you sadly.

In all honesty I don't think any private LL should be compelled to rent to someone against their will. They own the house, are ultimately responsible for the mortgage and should be able to minimise their risk. It's not like the govt are going to swoop down and fix it all if things go pear shaped.
Housing associations and councils should be properly financed by govt and responsible for housing riskier tenants.

@Megan2018 but you've chosen that landlords insurance if you wanted to you could have chosen one who would allow that but you obviously weren't bothered enough to do that

Also can I ask if you don't let through an agent whereabouts do you advertise your property?

CuriousaboutSamphire The discriminatory thing is because that is how the case was made. Ok it says indirect discrimination.

curious - but surely if the government is paying a claimant money for housing it should be spent on housing and not alcohol/drugs or whatever my previous tenant spent it on? If a person isnt mature enough to want to keep a roof over their head then wouldnt it be better to take that responsibility away from them, rather than end up having them and their kids evicted?

That's the logic of the Nanny State.

I don't agree with that, nor do I really agree with the level of benefits we have today. I think the focus needs to revert back to businesses, jobs, proper pay, proper contracts etc. The current regime was a reaction to a number of financial crashes but seem to have quickly become inaleinable rights!

But that is unpopular these days, though I suspect it is because it is translated to mean I think benefits - scroungers. Which is not what I think or mean.

@purpleme12 I cannot find any rent protection policy that allows this.

I advertise on Rightmove. You do not need an agent to do this.

@HorseFlyOfExtraordinaryLength I didn't deny that indirect dscrimination can occur. I was simply explaining how it happens and that blaming landlords is generally misplaced. There is a far greater institutionalised issue that needs to be addressed.

And the lettings industry has slowly been addressing it for a few years now. This needs to be recognised and supported so it wil continue. Not realy likely in light of the current slew of laws, but adding to the kneejerk dislike of landlords won't help!

you've chosen that landlords insurance if you wanted to you could have chosen one who would allow that but you obviously weren't bothered enough to do that They don't exist for most landlords. Have a quick Google ...

Again, blaming individual landlords for not doing something they cannot do is misguided!

As a Landlord its not always me that says no to those out of work but my insurance company. The other issue is if insurers allow people who aren't in work to occupy the property benefits used to get paid direct to the land lord but now it all goes to the tenant. As they are on such a low income sometimes they get into rent arrears (less of a chance with this if person in a paying job) As a Landlord I have mortgages, insurance and other invoices to pay out of rent before I make any money for myself. Renting out property is not easy sit on your backside counting the cash as some feel it is.

I do rent out to someone on long term benefits but it does cost me a premium in insurance.

They might not exist in the first household name insurance companies that first come to mind for people but they definitely do exist
I work in an insurance company who cover people who are letting the property out to people on DSS, (and while it's not a household name it's a big company)
You just have to look beyond the first names that come to mind!

... so the comment about me blaming landlords for something they can't do is actually misguided by you

So you know that there are additional clauses, premiums etc. I didn't say they do NOT exist, just that, as other LLs here have said, they add cost, maybe other restrictions etc. That puts them beyond the business reach of many landlords.

...??? Not really! You are blaming landlords for not making a business decision that they deem to be too expensive.

Look at the company you work for and ask them to reduce the additional premiums... no? Why not? Profit margins??