'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

I'm torn on this, I'm a single parent and was in receipt of benefits as a top up for a good few years. I remember the worry and the dread of having to find somewhere to live even though I had excellent references and was never late paying. However my parents own a number of properties and due to their frustration of watching me struggling to find somewhere to live have rented to benefit claimants in particular single working parents. Out of 20 only 2 haven't trashed the house. They have helped women who have escaped horrible situations and still been screwed over. One example was a woman with 3 DC leaving an abusive partner. My parents furnished an unfurnished property, gave clothes and toys to the kids for her to leave the house in such a state that it needed gutting (costing £10k). They have 2 long term benefit claimants but won't consider any more - they also pay premium on the insurance. The last 20 or so working professionals they've asked 3 to leave (1 for damage to the property the other 2 because of noise issues). So I can see both sides of this- I think there has to be some kind of govt rent and damages guarantee.

None of that is relevant to them being advised to stay put and force you to evict them if they want a council house though.

Do people realise that the DSS hasn't existed since 2001 ? If this terminology is used in insurance contracts I'm not sure how it would be enforceable.

Just a thought.

And I realise I’m not representative of anyone but myself but when housing benefit fucked up my claim and didn’t pay me anything for 8 weeks it was all my other bills that got reduced or not paid so that I could pay my rent. I can be hungry and cold in a house but I can’t cook and turn on the radiator in the street. Rent gets paid first no matter what. And I racked up a shitload of credit card debt to make that happen whilst housing benefit took 8 weeks to differentiate their arse from their elbow. No doubt if I’d missed a rent payment because of it I’d be a feckless benefits claimant who couldn’t budget though

None of that is relevant to them being advised to stay put and force you to evict them if they want a council house though.

Errrr yes it is. Because they would be unlikely to need a council house if they earned 30x their rent.

Good. We're currently living in a homeless shelter as our previous LL sold our rental house, & we couldn't find anything affordable that we could actually get. As soon as we mentioned that I'm disabled & DH works p/t (my carer & is retraining to get a better job) they just switched off. Thankfully we've been very fortunate to be offered social housing but so many people aren't. And it's actually quite shocking how much it costs to live in a shelter, too - the rent here is far more that we paid for our previous house.

As for LLs taking a big financial hit when/if a tenant trashes a house - that could happen anyway. It's surely a hazard of making your living this way. I do agree there should be some kind of (state funded?) insurance available against the possibility though. And possibly that it should be possible for the government to reclaim it from a tenant's benefits at a low rate if they do this, in a similar way to how child support is taken from NR parents on benefits.

And I don't think it would be illegal to discriminate by stipulating that tenants must have an annual income of at least thirty times the monthly rent. My understanding of the ruling is that it's just illegal to have a blanket ban on all benefits claimants.

Because they would be unlikely to need a council house if they earned 30x their rent.

Depending on where in the uk you are- it’s not always because they need a council house. They’re putting up some pretty nice new build council properties in my area over the last few years and still more being built. Lots of talk amongst people of “putting in” for one. You don’t need to be on benefits to live in a council house.

We have a property that we are about to rent out. The estate agent strongly advised against accepting DSS. We’ve had lots of viewings but are going to meet a potential renter this weekend. He is on benefits but can pay 6 months upfront. I don’t want to discriminate against him but am nervous that he may not be able to pay and we will end up in a terrible position...

I understand that butterer, its location dependant but the advice from housing is that you need to be evicted in order to have a hope of getting a council property so that’s what people do.

but am nervous that he may not be able to pay and we will end up in a terrible position.

Can you afford to be a landlord?

@AwdBovril because CMS is flawless isn't it? And how does £2 per week or some pathetic contribution from benefits any good to a Ll £15K in debt because of a Tennant?

I don’t want to discriminate against him but am nervous that he may not be able to pay and we will end up in a terrible position...

I'd say: check his current income, his savings and his job prospects. It's all very well paying six months upfront, but will be be able to pay the rent on an ongoing basis? (And that would apply whether he is on benefits or not.)

@Robs20 Have you checked your landlords insurance and Mortagage provider to see if your allowed?

I understand why landlords are reluctant to let to those of us on benefits. Housing benefit and UC often comes way short of market rents. We need more social housing, preferably council housing, and restored housing benefit to cover at least 50% of market rents in the area. That should not include illegal beds in a shed - I think the original calculations simple looked at a few local ads without checking whether the letting was legal or fit for human habitation.

Whilst I understand reticence to let to us benefit tenants, I hope people will stop asking "Why doesn't/didn't she leave" when a woman stays in a violent and abusive relationship. We need somewhere safe to leave to. Refuges are temporary.

Depending on where in the uk you are- it’s not always because they need a council house. They’re putting up some pretty nice new build council properties in my area over the last few years and still more being built. Lots of talk amongst people of “putting in” for one. You don’t need to be on benefits to live in a council house.

Yes you could put yourself on the list. Prince harry could apply for a council house. But if you earn 30 x your rent or any decent income you’ll be so low the priority list that you would be most unlikely to ever actually get one.

I'm pretty sure that "30 x their rent" should read "3 x their rent". Unless the tenant is running a cannabis factory or similar, I can't see someone who's raking it in choosing to live in scuzzy rented digs.

I used to hate the "No DSS" thing. Housing benefit was completely reliable once you were in the system, and you could even have it paid to the landlord, so there was no reasonable reason to refuse it. UC is a different kettle of fish, being both less generous and highly likely to be paid intermittently. Why should landlords take the extra risk of non payment? Isn't the real discrimination contained within the increasingly punitive and arbitrary benefit system itself? This is in addition to landlords having to verify tenants' immigration status too, which really shouldn't be part of their job. There will be difficult times ahead for the PRS if landlords are effectively forced to turn away foreigners/minorities (might be irregular migrants) and benefits claimants (might become unable to pay) yet risk being accused of discrimination for so doing.

But if you earn 30 x your rent or any decent income you’ll be so low the priority list that you would be most unlikely to ever actually get one

But if youre homeless you jump up the list.

I'm pretty sure that "30 x their rent" should read "3 x their rent". Unless the tenant is running a cannabis factory or similar

It means annual income should be 30 times monthly rent. So if monthly rent = £1000 your annual income should be £30k.

@GothamProtector I actually said that I thought there should be a state backed scheme to cover these kind of losses, & that the government could then reclaim the money (at a low rate) from the tenant. You could, if you like, compare it to student loans instead, with the tenants mandatory repayments linked to their income. I'm well aware that the CMS situation isn't perfect, but I don't imagine that the current rental laws are, either. And I'm speaking as someone who is currently homeless despite never having put a foot wrong. Great references from all my previous LLs.

This is in addition to landlords having to verify tenants' immigration status too, which really shouldn't be part of their job.

Of course it should be if they decide their jobs is providing homes! They have a responsibility to make sure they aren’t housing people who have no legal right to live there. Just as employers have a responsibility to make sure their employees have a legal right to work there.

My concern is DSS claimant means at home a LOT more therefore more wear and tear on property. I always asked for professional single or couple when I rented out a property. Once accepted a single working mother with a young child and that worked very well. The point is - I don’t want tenants that are in all day every day, simple due to wear and tear

But if youre homeless you jump up the list.

If you willingly choose to leave a property you have much fewer rights than if you are evicted. If you’re evicted, that usually has an impact on your credit score. Why anyone would willingly go through the stress of being evicted, end up in a hostel temporarily and have an impact on their credit rating just to be on the list for a council house and with no guarantee they’d get one or it would be the “nice flash” one they’ve seen down the road? I can’t imagine why anyone would go through that if they’re earning enough money to pay rent themselves.