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!

Wallinson, I can see that technically you are right, but you are doing an excellent job of minimising the reality of the situation. (I say that in the nicest possible way, it's actually quite impressive! ) The laws might protect landlords in theory, but in reality, they don't. They just don't.

Renting to the wrong person can leave a landlord thousands of pounds out of pocket. It happens all too often.

Being a landlord isn't compulsory, but there are plenty of landlords that aren't doing it through choice. They are often doing it because they themselves have had to move to follow work, or because their property is in negative equity. I don't think it's fair to say that landlords are always doing it as an investment. And even when they are doing it as an investment, they are providing a service. I appreciate that some landlords are terrible, but you can't tar them all with the same brush in exactly the same way as you can't tar all benefit claimants with the same brush.

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-37869610.html?premiumA=true

check out the teenage boy's bedroom

oh bugger......wrong thread.....sorry OP.

As individuals, of course landlords are primarily concerned with making money and protecting their assets, but this is a disaster on a societal level - the interests of individuals are completely at odds with the fact that everyone needs somewhere to live. Housing is a basic necessity and should be better regulated, not left up to the vicissitudes of individuals who are trying, for whatever reason, to monetise individual mortgaged properties they have picked up, and are themselves far too insecure or heavily leveraged to be in such an important business.

What I don't understand is why HB is the overriding factor in deciding who to rent to.

I agree with the OP, I would think references would be the most important thing.

I've rented for more than 20 years, I have never once even been late with a rental payment. Even when I was skint and living on toast, I always made sure the rent was paid.

By contrast I know people with plenty of money who do terrible things to their flat, just because they're jerks.

So relying on references first and foremost would make sure LLs end up with someone like me, not the jerks. But that doesn't seem to be how the process works most of the time.

I have a house I rent out, and in the past I would have been happy to rent to someone receiving housing benefit. Unfortunately I have recently found out our local council have been telling people, if they want to get a housing association property, they need to refuse to leave at the end of their tenancy. They will then house them, when they have actually been evicted, after the landlord has spent thousands taking it through court, and had months with no rent. This would make me think twice about taking a tenant who was getting housing benefit in future!

curryeater very well said

I actually live in France now, there are many more regulations on lets for this very reason -- housing is seen as a social not market good.

It's a very different culture though, you don't have such strong pressures for home ownership. It's not unusual for people to rent their whole lives.

If you momentarily detach yourself from your own personal interests, and imagine you are looking down on society from a deity-like position of disinterest, how would you answer this question:

Which is more important, ease and flexibility for asset-holders to profit from the human need for shelter, usually as a second income; or the need for people and families to have somewhere to live?

Interestingly we, as a society, seem to have chosen the opposite of what looks like the obvious answer to me.

People and families need somewhere to live, obviously, but are there really loads of landlords leaving their rental properties empty for months on end because they would prefer to do that that to rent to people on HB?

Maybe there are and I just haven't seen it.

From what I can see, potential HB tenants can be in a difficult situation, but that's not the fault of landlords. They are still likely to be renting their home to someone that needs it.

More social/council housing.
Only way to break the deadlock, then the council can chase its own tail for bills.

Clouds -- no, but I think what happens is HB claimants end up forced into shabbier, slum lord type housing, or having to live hours from where they work. That doesn't seem fair when they can pay just as much as others, when they have been just as good tenants in the past.

Remember that the majority of people on HB are working, they are just on low wages.

It just doesn't seem fair that you can do everything right work fulltime, be a model tenant and still have to live in a pit because you get a bit of HB. There should be more discretion in the system.

Clouds, no I do not believe that landlords leave properties empty rather than let to HB tenants, because that would not be in the landlord's interests. This is my whole point - the attention paid to the landlord's interests is completely out of whack - including the situation where we have too few rental properties altogether, allowing individuals (landlords) to become quasi-moral arbiters of who deserves to rent or not - but it is not done on a moral basis - but on the basis of what is in that individual landlord's interests - which in aggregate is TERRIBLE for society

Just have some imagination! I can't believe it is so hard for you to do what I asked - try to NOT think from the interests of the landlord, as if that trumps everything - and your response totally failed to acknowledge that such a position might be even conceptually possible

Sometimes I totally despair

Just have some imagination! I can't believe it is so hard for you to do what I asked - try to NOT think from the interests of the landlord, as if that trumps everything - and your response totally failed to acknowledge that such a position might be even conceptually possible

I am thinking if it from both perspectives. The way I see it, is that as long as the homes aren't empty, then it's not a problem that the landlord can be expected to solve. We need more housing as a country, yes, but as long as a landlord is providing someone with a home that they couldn't afford to buy themselves, then it makes no difference whether they are on HB or not. People that don't need HB need housing just as much as people that do need HB.

When we rented out our home we had to get permission from the building society and pay a fee and then paid a higher interest rate - even after all that the building society still told us who we could and couldn't rent to - at that time (1994) they just stated we couldn't rent to students. I don't know what it's like now but yes they can certainly impose restrictions on you. Others that refuse to rent to certain types probably have had a bad experience in the past so you will find alot of No DSS, No pets, No kids etc etc

Clouds -- no, but I think what happens is HB claimants end up forced into shabbier, slum lord type housing, or having to live hours from where they work. That doesn't seem fair when they can pay just as much as others, when they have been just as good tenants in the past.

But they aren't paying just as much as others are they? That's the whole point. They are paying some of their rent from their own earnings sometimes, but sometimes they aren't. Which is why landlords have the problem of being at the mercy of the council. If councils couldn't make landlords liable for any money they had overpaid, then I think there would be more landlords willing to let to HB tenants. As long as we have a situation where landlords can be chased for money that they didn't claim, they age going to be understandably reluctant to take a risk on a tenant that doesn't have full control of their own money.

Things will only get worse, too!

no, but I think what happens is HB claimants end up forced into shabbier, slum lord type housing, or having to live hours from where they work. That doesn't seem fair when they can pay just as much as others, when they have been just as good tenants in the past.

Dreaming - I would very happily rent again to HB tenants if there was more security around payment i.e. going back to a system where the benefit is paid directly to the landlord. FWIW, I travel hours to work (London) as I can't afford a house nearby. Go figure.

More social housing (owned by the state) is the answer in my eyes.

I would like some more direct answers to my 15.08 question please:

If you momentarily detach yourself from your own personal interests, and imagine you are looking down on society from a deity-like position of disinterest, how would you answer this question:

Which is more important, ease and flexibility for asset-holders to profit from the human need for shelter, usually as a second income; or the need for people and families to have somewhere to live?

I am getting a lot of waffle about how "landlords... are understandably reluctant..." Yes, if we decide to understand them, if we identify with them, landlords are very understandable indeed, yes yes, blah blah. but think bigger and think what the answer to that question above should be.

Curryeater - no brainer for me, folk need somewhere to live, which is affordable, accessible and habitable.

This is a difficult one. Many landlords have mortgage contracts that expressly prohibit this. Believe me, they would if they could - it would broaden the market for tenants enormously.

But let's assume it's the landlord's choice for a moment - why would they say no? HB claimants are not usually a problem, especially if they are working, so they would be considered fairly.

DSS tenants can be an utter nightmare and a huge liability from a landlord's perspective. Even if the rent if paid directly to the LL via the LA so that arrears cannot be run up, the wear and tear, and the sheer hassle is enormous. Places get burnt down, flooded, stacked to the ceiling with shit, the boiler ripped out, the floors ripped up, the copper piping nicked, the gardens trashed and used as toilets, sinks ripped from walls, they get used as crack dens, brothels, they get filled up and overcrowded with subletting illegal immigrants, the address gets a terrible credit rating which can be very hard to shift and can affect the owner directly, the neighbours make endless complaints due to anti-social behaviour, the police are always there, blah blah blah. And no-one wants to give you insurance. And if they do it costs a bloody fortune.

People moan that landlords overcharge for housing, and rip off local authorities to house the vulnerable, but all of the above are factors that people fail to take into account when LLs set their rents for housing 'vulnerable' or high maintenance tenants. There has to be a financial line below which, as a landlord, you will not go - it just isn't worth the hassle, and the risks are too great.

Of course with HB for non-nightmare tenants, I agree, it's a real shame. But the simple fact is that the building societies know from years of experience that HB claimants are statistically less likely to pay their rent regularly and on time than non-HB claimants, and that can lead to the landlord who is highly geared facing repossession.

This could easily be solved if all HB was always paid directly to the landlord, bypassing the tenant, but all the while that is considered to be demeaning and is not standard practice then we are stuck with what we are stuck with.

Incidentally I have an asylum seeker in one of my properties, funded by social services. They've been there 7 months now and I still have not had a penny in rent from the LA, because I am obviously still languishing in someone's in-tray. And I am paying the utilities as well - can you imagine my heating bill for this winter? Luckily I don't have a building society breathing down my neck, or I'd be having to turf him out. which would make me feel terrible, but I am not a charity - it's my job.

Its not always the landlord's fault.

Which is more important, ease and flexibility for asset-holders to profit from the human need for shelter, usually as a second income; or the need for people and families to have somewhere to live?

If ou want the back and white answer, then clearly, people having somewhere to live is more important than people having profits.

But you ask this question as if its the only thing that matters, and it isn't.

For the individuals involved, the asset holder making a profit is important. The person needing housing is important. But the two things don't have to be fighting against each other. It is not the asset holders responsibility to provide someone else's housing at risk to themselves.

It is governments responsibility to provide for society's needs. Society includes people needing housing and it includes landlords. They both have rights to consideration from their government. It doesn't matter if one need is greater than the other, they both deserve consideration. Government should be considering how it houses people that need some sort of social help to house themselves. Landlords can stay in the private sector and rent to other people in the private sector. That's what we are allowed to do in a free society. Then when people need help, like the people you refer to in your question, government has to step in without expecting individuals to take the risks for them.

WeAreEternal If for whatever reason you need to evict someone on DSS will be told by the council that they will only be given help if they refuse to leave the property and have to be taken to court. In these circumstances the tenant will often stop paying the rent completely in an effort to save money for their eventual move, and as this process can take up to a year that is a lot of money lost.

And YYY to this ^ as well.

curryeater I would say both are equally important. Clearly people need somewhere to live, but if the landlords didn't profit from it nobody would want to be a landlord and everyone would have to buy. Unless you think that all landlords are rolling in it and should be happy to provide free housing?

Right, but if you run a haulage company your stuff might get nicked or your lorries break down. If you run a restaurant, customers might not come, or might do a runner without paying, or might order a £3.99 starter and sit for 4 hours. If you put on a show your leading lady might get flu.

Why should landlords be in the only risk-free business in, erm, business (even when the risks to those on the other side - tenants, homelessness - are so much more severe than the risks to the landlord - a slightly less profitable business)?

And why, even when explicitly invited to do so, do some of you find it so hard even in theory to stop thinking about things from the landlord's POV?