to think that not considering renting to people on housing benefit is really unfair?

[whattimestea]

If i am being unreasonable then fair enough-if people can explain why then that might help me see things with more perspective and stop me feeling so down and disheartened by everything at the minute.

Basically due to changes to my families circumstances and also to the benefits system as it stands we have no choice but to look for cheaper rental accommodation. That's ok, not disputing that. The problem is that although we're on our housing association list, local council list - of landlords that have registered with them - there is literally nothing that we are eligible for. With local housing agency's tho and estate agents there are about twenty properties in the area that are within the price and spec that we need. BUT we can't get within a sniff of these as they all say 'no housing benefit/DSS. Why is this that without so much as meeting a person you can be completely excluded from even enquiring about a property?

We have rented from our current landlord for 11 years-have never missed a weeks rent (have only claimed HB for previous 9 months). We can provide a guarantor if needed, a deposit, and as many references as required. But it makes no difference they just don't want to know.

I understand from others that certain mortgages and insurance that landlords have on rentals state that they cannot let to benefits claimants? How is this fair to state that the way a person receives their income can make them illegible for housing? You wouldn't be able to state on an advert for a house rental 'will not rent to members of the armed forces/plumbers/shopworkers etc would you? Or would you?!

If after reading replies i see how i am being unreasonable then so be it! Just feeling very demoralised at the moment - like Im banging my head against a brick wall with it all! For the record - my family would be lovely, reliable, trouble free tenants!

I would say base it on references. Then the choice is up to landlord based on those findings. I wouldn't even get to the point that my references would be considered regardless of how fantastic they are. The door is slammed in my face before the word go!

The landlords that overlook the HB aspect are usually landlords that don't have to pay a BTL mortgage but that have decided not to take a risk on HB tenants anyway.

Landlords don't only refuse HB tenants because of their insurance or mortgage, they often do it because of HB tenants being high risk. The risks still apply whether or not you have a BTL mortgage. But you are minimising that risk if your tenant will provide extra deposit or rent in advance.

Obviously, if their refusal is genuinely down to mortgage or insurance then it won't make much difference. But some landlords are really just worried about the rent being paid and think if you're on HB then it won't be. If you can prove it will, by waving a load of cash in their face and saying "This is yours if you say yes", then it can change their mind.

One other thing you could offer is an enhanced deposit - say, two months instead of one. Obv this is more risky and also more difficult because it means the money is tied up and you may not get it back! But in the case of a landlord whose only concern is that the rent may not be paid, having this extra cash as a back-up might sway them.

My parents got their fingers burned with this. They rented out their flat to a lovely young women (apparently). She was in receipt of housing benefit. This was no problem for them. However, after several months her claim was reassessed and it turned out she wasn't eligible for housing benefit after all. The whole sum was reclaimed from my parents. She did a runner. They were left very much out of pocket. It's a stupid system - it's only the state that can assess eligibility for claiming the benefit and it's the state that has the tools to trace someone. But all the downside is put onto the LL.

No solution is there. Like i said, can see landlords point of view. But then also for the likes of myself and other honest and decent people on benefit but in the position of having to rent privately it is a bleak position to be in.

On an individual level, the situation is very unfair.

Landlords need more protection in law before they will be willing to take risks on people, because at the moment, they have next to none.

Actually, landlords have plenty of protection. It's just that, in cases where the law is involved, it's difficult to enforce judgement against an impecunious/missing defendant. But that's true of all litigation. Landlords have it pretty good in this country compared to some others - they can kick tenants out when they want with two months' notice for starters, which is something you'd be hard-pushed to find elsewhere. Also, I can't think of many sectors where you can make money and barely be regulated at all, barring stuff like gas checks (which is only to prevent death).

Thousands of people do get a shot at renting. They go to a letting agency and provide details of their salary which is confirmed. The agency can then show the landlord that these people can afford the rent that is being asked.

Someone on housing benefit by definition can't afford to pay their rent. that's why they're receiving it. They are very tight for cash. Therefore the chance that they will be unable to pay the rent much higher than for those who aren't on benefits. Add to that the fact that the council may at any point decide to stop their benefit leaving the tenant unable to pay or decide that they were fraudulently claiming and pursue the landlord to get the money back.

The attitude seems to be that landlords are sitting back raking in money. Many landlords rely on the rent to pay the mortgage on the property they rent out. It is actually owned by the mortgage company. Those who use letting agents are also paying out management fees and insurance. A few months without rent could see them in severe financial difficulty.

Even if you are a model tenant you are a much higher risk than someone who pays their own rent.

Whattimestea - I hope they will listen to you in person. A word of caution, don't give up if a few show you the door. We have 12 agents locally. We took a morning to visit them all. 9 told us sorry, but no way. 3 of them agreed to speak to some of the LLs on their books, we had a viewing with one, lovely flat but then he got cold feet and backed out (this was because the agent got the wrong end of the stick, she assumed we weren't married and I was a single mother on benefits having her boyfriend move in - the LL was worried we were committing benefit fraud. By the time we had put her straight, he'd let the flat to someone else).

Money talks as well. We showed out LL bank statements, proof of tax credits, ds maintenance, savings, everything to reassure her. Offered over and above deposit etc. We gave personal references, uni references even one from ds school.

^^ It is actually owned by the mortgage company.

Ffs sorry but this enrages me. No it isn't. The mortgage company has a charge on the property but it does not own it. There is a massive difference.

In theory they might be able to kick tenants out with two months notice. The reality is that it can be a lot longer than that if the tenant refuses to leave. It can be months of lost rent with no way at all of getting your money back, as well as having to pay extra legal costs. And often having to pay for damage to the property on top of that.

That doesn't sound like having it good to me.

I really don't think it's anything to do with you as a person, some might if they are really struggling to find tenants take the risk, but if that means they have higher costs or risk problems with their mortgage, then you can be the best tenant in the world, they aren't going to rent to you.

Will this change with Universal Credit? As all benefits will be rolled up together, will it make things easier for tenants?

It doesn't take long to get a court order and get bailiffs round - certainly not the 'year' that some people on this thread have been quoting. And it's not as though there is 'no way at all' of claiming - just file it at court. Of course, if the tenant is untraceable or has no money then it gets difficult, but like I say such practical considerations are true of all litigation and has nothing to do with protection per se - the legal recourse is there. Landlords are pretty well-protected in the UK. Tenants, not so much.

What I'm saying is that the landlord puts down a deposit of eg 20% and gets a buy to let mortgage. The rent then pays that mortagage, the insurance costs and management fees. If that rent isn't paid it isn't an annoyance. It means that the mortgage can't be paid leading to the risk of losing the house and much of the equity in it (the 20% they put down plus any extra they've paid off since) as the place is sold off on the cheap.

9 times out of 10 the reason to reject someone due to DSS (even by mortgage/insurance) has nothing to do with the claimant/perspective tenants and everything to do with the benefits system and how the council advise and arrange things.

It is the benefits system and the councils that make DSS too risky to accept not the stereotype that all people who claim benefits are awful tenants who will trash your house.

What about the fact that several years after the tenant has left the council can pursue the landlord for the rent because the tenant wasn't entitled to the benefit?

Again, that only happens if the tenant can't be made to cough up ie it's a practical difficulty encountered within the litigation process - the money has to be recouped somehow. It doesn't mean that the landlord is not protected. And of course, no-one has to become a landlord. If you can't sell your house, lower the price. If you want to invest your money, do it elsewhere. It's not compulsory to be a landlord. Tenants, on the other hand, very often do have very little choice over whether to be a tenant or not and given the parlous state of tenants' rights in this country it could easily be said that most of them are only in that situation because they have to be - virtually nobody would choose to be a tenant in the private rental market instead of, say, a home-owner or a council tenant with proper rights and proper security.

That's not true. The council pursue the landlord because they know they're more likely to pay as they have an asset. I'd love to hear from any landlord who then managed to get the money back from a tenant.

You seem to have a massive sense of entitlement and little regard for other people.

Youa re right, Wallison. No one has to become a landlord. For those that do and are successful, it is because they have weighed up the odds, calculated the best choices and had luck on their side.
And have carefully judged the benefits and consequences of taking risks on a case by case basis. They don't have to be landlords. Landlords can choose who to rent their property to.

I don't know how you have come to that conclusion about me, since I haven't said I'm a landlord!

Perhaps because you seem to suggest that landlords should basically suck up any losses and bend over backwards because they choose to do it.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. I used different words that have a different meaning which, when put together, don't equate to anything like that. But really it was a secret code. And you, being someone who thinks a charge is the same as ownership, are smart enough to work it out. I take my hat off to you.

No, it's not compulsory to be a landlord, but it's an investment, not something done out of charitable thoughts about providing a home to those in need or a social good.

There are higher costs and higher risks involved in renting to DSS/HB tenants, so if you can find a tenant who won't need you to have higher costs and take higher risks for the same rent each month, why would you not do that? The sort of person who likes "bricks and morter" investments over what are often better performing but higher risk investments are causious people - these are people who don't want to take a risk they don't have too.

Yes. Massive difference. The mortgage company being entitled to sell the property if the mortgagee defaults for a price below market value and take off the money they are owed, which is 4/5 of the market value, leaving the 'owner' with less than the 20% deposit they started with and no house.

And a screwed credit record.