'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 I can rent my house to professional couples with a joint income in excess of £60k why would I want to rent it to a person or couple on benefits? I can see no benefit to me to rent to the higher risk person. I’m not a charity.

In my situation, I have a property with a mortgage that I let out. Because I have a mortgage, I don’t really own in. The bank owns it. They set what conditions they will accept that they think will best get them their money. If they accepted DSS claimants, I would, but if they had poor credit then I would be very hesitant because I have a mortgage to pay. I don’t see my property as a business - it is my security that I have my own property if I ever split up with my partner, but I need the mortgage to be covered by rental income.

agree massively with whoever it was that said there needs to be some kind of system to see who's a good tenant or not. That would help enormously, because obv youll have people in work who dont claim benefits who are arseholes that will wreck your house, and people who do claim benefits that will be lovely tenants who pay on time and look after your house.

I kind of understand the "profiling" that was explained earlier but it still seems a bit.... mean... to me. I do however understand completely that you have to protect yourself. I really do.

Its hard, isn't it.

another propaganda triumph for Shelter (the housing charity that never housed anyone) - this does NOTHING. As some people have noticed, this will have no effect on the mortgage companies and insurers. Being a landlord is a business and good landlords don't breach mortgage or insurance conditions.

not all mortgages or insurance say 'no benefits' but many do. It will be as effective as the homelessness reduction act which says that councils should not make evicted tenants wait for the bailiff. There are still not enough council houses so nothing has changed.

yes, of course anyone can lose a job. And if you are wondering, my tenant from hell was a single man. The single woman was wonderful.

as I said, don't fall for the propaganda from those who don't understand business. If Shelter were of any use they would be trying to get the law on insurance and mortgage terms changed, not doing silly studies.

But Private Landlords are not a charity or the council. They are a business who pay taxes. To make a profit and keep the business going you have to choose clients who will pay and as a PP said statistically that is people not on benefits. Personally I look at individual cases, and I prefer older tenants as they have had experience of house maintenance etc...know not to throw wet wipes down the toilet. So for me it's not just if they can pass a credit check, will they look after the house

The rental system is changing, landlords were allowed to offset interest paid on BTL mortgages, this is being reduced. If people have large mortgages and a tenant does not pay this may involve the house being repossessed. Lenders may now be reluctant to lend to landlords, which will result in less housing available to rent, so LLs can be more selective.

I’m a single mum of 4, I work But have my wages topped up by hb & tc.

I was made homeless 2 years ago in January landlord wanted house back due to relocating back to UK from abroad. There was no hope for me renting elsewhere in the city I lived in, no one would accept me on benefits or affordability despite having paid on reliably and on time for 4 years in that house previous house was with ex partner.
So paying history and condition of house needed to be taken into account. So we are in a temp house where 3 of my 4 boys share a room it’s really too small and my 14 year old finds it hard to share with smaller brothers one with asd who is quite difficult so it’s been trying for us all.

Not sure it’s landlords fault as they don’t want to be out of pocket with people who trash houses/don’t pay but they could be missing out on decent families who just want a home and security for the future and it’s hard renting. I don’t know if/when we will be housed somewhere permanent as the current situation is pretty grim, and I just feel like no one cares we have been dumped here and forgotten about.

I don't think it will make any difference. Maybe the property cannot be advertised as 'No DSS' but it will soon come out in affordability checks, which both the agents and LLs are at liberty to set.

I don't know if this is possible under UC, but you used to be able to ask for your HB to be paid direct to your landlord if you felt having it paid to yourself would lead to you falling behind with your rent. I know that if you are in a council property your HB goes direct to the council, why should private renters be discriminated against. When I was first a single parent I had to pay a portion of my rent myself, I only got half paid by HB, I really struggled financially, after paying my rent & bills, I had less than £50 a week to feed & clothe myself & ds, put petrol in the car & pay any expenses for school etc, I ended up getting behind with both my bills & my rent because some weeks I had to make a choice between paying them or buying my ds new school uniform or shoes. The benefits system is such that now I could afford to pay all my rent myself, but I get all my rent covered by HB, but when I was working & receiving HB I had less money coming in & had to pay half my rent myself.

People who talk about benefits being paid directly to the LL
This is possible in some cases but can backfire
MIL had tenants who were on Benefits but always late with their payments, she eventually (with their agreement) arranged to be paid direct, with The Tenants making up the difference- which they didn’t
When she eventually got them out, owing her thousands in rent and thousands more in damages she just breathed a sigh of relief and would have been happy to rent to people on benefits again as long as she could get direct payments.
THEN she got a letter from the Benefits people to say that the ex Tenants had been claiming housing benefit fraudulently and they wanted the money they had paid direct to MIL back! Eventually with the help of her local MP and a family friend who is a solicitor she didn’t have to pay it
Letting a property is a business decision, or should be, and LL need to rent to whoever they believe on the evidence they have will be the best Tenants and rightly or wrongly they often choose working people over people on benefits. And that’s before you factor in whether their Mortgage lender and insurance company will allow it, some do but it may cost more or mean a change in provider

@Batqueen same here, my rental is my former home from before I met my husband. If we separated I’d need it (we have a legal document that he has signed that it is not matrimonial property). If I don’t need it for myself it will go to my daughter.

In the meantime it needs looking after. It’s in an affluent area with excellent schools, near the station and walking distance to several large employers. As a result rent is high and there is no shortage of excellent tenants. I therefore pick and choose who I rent to.

I am not hugely well off (although I acknowledge I am better off than some). The income is funding my current maternity leave so any deficit in rent would leave us unable to pay the mortgage where I live. So by being picky I am protecting my own family. I don’t care if that’s selfish-I’m not to blame for the shortage of affordable social housing.

I'm a landlord and would happily rent to someone on benefits, but my insurance won't let me.

If I could get reasonably priced insurance, i would happily do this, but I suspect that even if insurance is forced to remove those clauses the cost would increase dramatically and then the rent would have to go up. I'm a very conscientious landlord who keeps rent fair and does repairs quickly etc but I can't afford to rent my house out at a loss.

*@HorseFlyOfExtraordinaryLength

'*I've often thought that should I win millions I would buy up property and let only to people in my situation-working, single mothers with children who due to separation from spouses are on their own, getting tax credits and housing benefit.'

So in your post about discrimination being used when it comes to letting out houses, you also show you would discriminate too!

If you can pick and choose tenants based in their personal and financial circumstances should you become a landlord, surely you don't expect current landlords not to?

I had 2 friends who both worked fulltime they was both evicted from their private house for the same reason non payment of rent I'm talking thousands in arrears
I'm on benefits I pay my rent every singe week on the dot never missed a payment I'm currently looking for somewhere else and I'm constantly turned down it makes me so sad as I do pay my rent

I'm a private landlord - just one property.

In my experience there's a greater risk with DSS tenants - especially now HB goes to the individual not straight to the landlord.

I feel as a landlord I should be able to decide who lives at the property. I understand this can be discriminatory, but as a result of the law change it should be made easier to evict if rent is not paid and councils should be made to stop telling non-paying tenants to stay put.

Seems completely right that this amounted to indirect discrimination based on a protected characteristic (ie single mothers were disproportionately affected).

However, I think all this means is that simply being a benefits claimant alone cannot be the filter mechanism that landlords use to discriminate. They do of course discriminate (quite legitimately) based on credit risk and ability to pay. So they will need to look at benefits claimants actual circumstances rather than rejecting them automatically. So for example if they can comfortably afford the rent from their income, have good references, a good credit position, can come up with a chunky deposit and can produce a home-owning guarantor then they must be considered fairly alongside other applicants. But in many cases I'm guessing that that will be hard for benefits claimants to establish.

I was a landlord. I had a mortgage and wanted to let my house out when I moved away temporarily. I had to write to my mortgage company and ask permission to let out. They agreed for an initial 2 year period and stipulated I was no to let to students, multi occupancy or DSS. This was also the case for my landlords insurance.

Governments fault as rent paid to the Tennant and not direct to landlord. In my experience iv had three DSS tenants, one paid on time the other two never paid. Employed tennants much better bet.

No way will I ever let to benefit claimants.

Far too risky and I have my own family to house and feed etc. Not worth the risk.

@IfYoureNotIntoYoga Hell Yeah!

There are now something like only 3 mortgage brokers that don’t allow renting to benefit claimants. Historic restrictions in the main don’t apply anymore, landlords please check as unless you are with a very tiny company you are fine - all big brokers no longer have restrictions. Same for insurers.

Mortgage companies I mean, not brokers! But this is now a redundant argument as the restrictions just aren’t there !

What about people working who have top ups benefits. What about a disabled person who can’t work? These are the people who receive housing benefit. How on Earth do you think peoples salaries = rent these days?

And if you’re renting to a family on 60k I
Very much doubt you’re getting anyone on benefits applying for that property. These are the properties at the cheaper end of the scale. The ones you know, where shop workers, nurses, hospital porters etc live. The people who make this country work and certainly are not earning 60k.

I’m a landlord and rented to a tenant with benefits. We then came to sell the house as I was pregnant and we needed to move ourselves and it was a complete nightmare. We did absolutely everything by the books - in the 5 years she had been there we’d never increased the rent and did a load of repairs above and beyond (ie paid for her to decorate to her taste). It turned out she’d split from her partner and so wasn’t entitled to the same level of benefit as before.

When we didn’t renew the contract and gave additional notice she wouldn’t move out. She’d been given the advice not to move out as by this time, the rent we charged her was below market value. She was advised to be evicted and be declared homeless to get a council property instead.

It was utterly stressful and although I had a lot of pity for her situation, and yes, we took the landlord risk ourselves, I wouldn’t do it. I’d never rent to someone like that again.

Well it is clearly discriminatory, the point is that it is unlawful (I assume it is, haven't rtft).