'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

Most student accommodation insists on a guarantor who agrees that in case of arrears, they will be responsible. I did this for DD and her friend.
Landlords will find other ways to make sure they don’t lose out, have huge debts or their properties repossessed if this becomes law. Why should they take the risk? I wouldn’t if I thought I’d potentially be stuck with a liability costing me thousands.
Building social housing, akin to the old council houses seems the best protection for tenants.

How would the LL be held legally accountable? Am sure there's not only one person/ family applying for a property when it's up for rent? Am l picking it up wrong that the expectations is then if someone on DSS applied for the property they have to get it?

I’m curious about the mortgage and insurance aspect. Perhaps things are different In my town/area (NI) I have been renting privately for 15 years. I’ve been a single parent throughout. About 4 years of that time in receipt of income support or job seekers. I check local rental listings very regularly and get updates in my email and on FB. It is extremely rare that an agent or landlord will state “no DHSS”. The only times I do see it are in the ads on gumtree or very rarely a fb post from the landlord. I’ve never enquired about a property to be told “no DHSS, sorry” and I’ve enquired about a lot of properties over the years.

A great result but it is just a START on the right road.

Enforcement of such decisions is the issue.

Shelter are working hard on this and similar issues. Great charity imo. They've helped me and people I've referred to them loads.

I've been on benefits almost 18 years now in some way or another, not always housing benefit though.

I've always paid my rent no problem and been a responsible tenant. I'm in social housing now but I've privately rented mostly and it's so hard when so many are "no dss"

Shelter have pointed out on their Facebook page that most lenders & insurers DO provide options where owners aren't restricted to "no dss" tenants at little to no extra cost at that level.

I think it's fair enough for potential landlords to check if a tenant has a responsible renting history, but it's not on to blanket refuse to let to ALL "on dss"

The vast majority of people do pay their rent and keep the property in a reasonable state.

And I've certainly been aware of supposedly "low risk" people (working and not "dss") who've been nightmare tenants.

Attributing negative associations to a group purely because of something they cannot change is surely the very definition of "discrimination"?

Building social housing, akin to the old council houses seems the best protection for tenants.

Social housing is not the same as council housing.

There are regulations but these are still private companies existing to make a profit.

She was advised to be evicted and be declared homeless to get a council property instead.

This has absolutely nothing to do with her being on benefits. Anyone who wants a council house will be told they have to wait to be evicted in order to be classed as homeless. That’s anyone, benefit reliant people, full time workers who’ve never claimed a benefit in their lives and everyone in between. You’re no safer from that situation by renting to someone who doesn’t claim benefits.

But as a previous LL said, if someone is employed, you can get an attachment of earnings if they owe you money.

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.

But as a previous LL said, if someone is employed, you can get an attachment of earnings if they owe you money.

Shirley wasn’t talking about being owed money. A tenant who stopped paying rent would be deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless and not be eligible for council help. I’m talking about the risk of a tenant refusing to leave because they want a council property. Same risk whether in receipt of benefits or not.

I would not let to DSS recipients.

I would reconsider if the laws changed to first pay rent directly to LL, make the eviction process for non payment of rent quicker and cheaper. And the debts to be easier to cause if charges are incurred due to non payment of rent.

Insurance and mortgages are based on statistical evidence. And that's that. For every wonderful person who's on benefits and wouldn't abuse the system there's a person who would. There's a lot less fall back if you're letting you're property out to a working tenant vs dss and a lot more risk. My parents let out a house without restrictions and every single time dss tenants would trash the place taking everything and including every single time the whole kitchen. They'd then disappear and my parents had to replace everything again. They only owned the property because they bought it off my brother when he hit hard times. It wouldn't sell and they wanted to help but eventually they finally got the last tenants out and sold up. Les that force landlords to have anyone in the property will affect the market negatively no matter how you look at it.

What perhaps would be better is mortgage and insurances allowing people with years of good references whilst in receipt of dss to be separated from the twits that are the root cause of this problem.

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

How is that a greater risk than people who pay rent with their salary that is paid to them rather than you? are you implying there is something that happens to people when they become a housing benefit recipient that means they forget how to set up a Standing order?

I’m glad and hope it starts a positive change. If people buy up the housing stock they should be prepared to rent without discrimination. No one needs more than one home it’s just greed.

When are people going to stop attacking LL and start trying to resolve the problem of the bad tenants that are spoiling it for everyone?

It will be very hard to prove discrimination, if the landlord is careful about the language they use. As has been said, most have a number of prospects to select from.
A history of reliable rent payment, a credit check, excellent verified references, DBS, three months rent in advance, big damage deposit...guarantor. Lots of ways of filtering that will not help the more vulnerable, those without family able to help, or a complicated history.

No way will I ever let to benefit claimants.

But under the old system of tax credits, you'd never have known. With UC there will eventually be about 4 million households claiming - there are more than 2 million already, the majority privately renting. There are only about 5 million households privately renting in the UK.

You won't have anyone to rent to, come 2024, if you refuse all claimants!

*WhatKatyDidNot Letting agents ask detailed question about your income so TC or other benefits definitely come up.
However if you started to claim once you were a tenant then maybe no, the LA would never know.
There is a question on claiming HB asking whether you would rather the LL wasn't informed.

I’m talking about the risk of a tenant refusing to leave because they want a council property. Same risk whether in receipt of benefits or not.

I believe that those in receipt of benefits are a higher risk than those who are creating their own income

Agree I often wonder who LLs and LA think is going to be tenanting their properties but then when so many people can't get on the property ladder I suppose there is a huge market in private rental.

I believe that those in receipt of benefits are a higher risk than those who are creating their own income

Why do you believe that?

And what do you believe about people who work but still require benefits to allow them to have a roof over their heads?

Predictions were that 1/4 of households would be renting privately by the end of 2021. I doubt LLs will run out of what they consider suitable tenants.

Why do you believe that?

Because, from a risk perspective, someone who earns 30x their rental payment (I believe that’s the standard amount our agency looks for) or has a guarantor for that amount is much more likely to be able to continue to pay their rent or get another job if they lose that one. My concern with benefits recipients is that they are unlikely to receive 30x the rental income in benefits and as circumstances change may end up not receiving funds to put towards rent. Or that if benefits are cut they go towards other living expenses. As you would, but as a landlord it isn’t a risk I’d feel comfortable taking.