'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

@Pickledlily
Even if you weren’t on benefit, from what you’ve said (the places you want say no children and no pets) you would be stuck!

Although I have to say - I don’t see many rentals saying no childcare AND no pets AND no benefits (it actually says no benefits? Because that means no child benefit, which would rule out a couple with one child each earning £49k!)

Pickled I guess you need to find a way to earn more money. Are you working full-time? Still doesn't solve no children and no pets, though . A lot of people are stuck.

Labour had 13 years in which to abolish Right To Buy, during many of which property prices were soaring well out of reach of so many. But they didn’t - I suspect because they thought it would lose them votes.

More likely because they didn't want the financial system/banks to crash, which they did anyway. Pretty sure the same problem still exists - which is why housing will never be adequately addressed even though it's actually vital to adequately address it. Politicians are sticking their fingers in their ears.

However it works out, whatever happens, people who live in the UK have to live somewhere. It's not just about private letting - whether the interests of tenants or of landlords should take precedence. The current situation is not sustainable.

UC, as in many other areas, is aggravating an already existing problem.

Sadly although it's nice they won its impossible to police

A lot of insurers and mortgage providers won't cover Landlords who take DSS.
And when I volunteered in a homeless shelter, I would ring a company up when the as didn't include no DSS, to be told they want 6 months up front to take them- who on benefits is going to have 6 months money? Then there is the credit check which they will use against prospective tenants, and they can't be forced to take a DSS tenant if a non-DSS tenant also applies.
In fact, my concern would be they will stand to make money out of this. Now, you could easily go for a property and be asked for a holding fee, only to be turned down and lose that fee.

saying 'no children' seems madness as it cuts the pool of possible tenants down hugely. OK, there will be wear and tear but kids don't generally excrete on the carpet or chew the woodwork like pets do, and they aren't normally left alone for hours to destroy the place. Children really should not be a reason to reject a tenant.

(MN oversensitivity alert...calm down)

and yes, right-to-buy is a big cause of the housing shortage but what would you do if you were offered it? Bet most on here wouldn't turn it down for ethical reasons.

Because the landlord paid up rather than fighting their case, no legal precedent is set. The discrimination will continue.

Landlords, lenders, and insurers will make their excuse. I remind them that the same kind of arguments were made by motor insurers who once charged different premiums based on sex - a practice that has now been prohibited. The whole point of anti-discrimination law is that there are factors you are not allowed to consider when offering a job, product, home, whatever. The argument being made is that whether someone gets their income from a job or from benefits should be one of those factors you're not to make decisions based on, because it ends up being discriminatory.

we've never had a problem with tenants and children, except the last one who looked like she allowed her 5 year old child to paint the house bright pink, with no protection on the carpets. she was a nightmare anyway though....nothing to do with children.

many people with children are very houseproud, and tend not to have all night parties. they are also super keen not to be made homeless so pay rent on time.

And apparently you cant stop a tenant from having a pet, even if its written into the contract (or that was the legal advice when nightmare tenant got a dog, that crapped everywhere, dug up the garden and frightened the neighbours)

* A lot of insurers and mortgage providers won't cover Landlords who take DSS. *

Once a law is in place - it applies to insurers and mortgage providers too!

Once a law is in place - it applies to insurers and mortgage providers too!

This is true, but there hasn't been a binding decision yet. Although I would have thought only a matter of time. If I was a lender I'd be altering the test to amount of income rather than source.

Trust me, if they can work a way round it, they will.
Sad but true.

@raffle have you found that the estate agents you're talking to will suddenly drop their smiley welcoming attitude when you tell them the person you're helping secure housing for is on benefits? Almost every single time that has happened, and it makes my stomach turn.

laughing at the idea the sex-based insurance discrimination law change made a difference. Everyone's premiums went up as a result.

teen boys are generally shittier drivers than teen girls - although the boys do it faster so solve the problem by getting killed, the girls just have bumps and scrapes. Sorry if facts are offensive but that doesn't change them.