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!

[TheRealFellatio]

Well they don't curry - but if restauranteurs want to start turning away custom at the door because they don't like the look of the customers then that's up to them!

The question is, would the haulier choose to move dangerous chemicals or gas bottles if the insurance was higher and the risks were greater than if he moved tins of soup? Maybe. but only if the job pays enough to make it worth his while. If he can get fractionally less money for the soup, and no hassles, he'll go with the soup.

[CloudsAndTrees]

No one is saying they should be a risk free business. Where did you get that idea from?

There are always going to be risks. It's about minimising the risks. In the same way that if you run a haulage company you lock your stuff up to reduce the risk of it being nicked. You service your lorries to reduce the risk of them breaking down. If you run a restaurant you advertise to reduce the risk of no one turning up.

There is nothing wrong with minimising risks.

Perhaps the reason I'm thinking about it from the LLs POV is because it's their property and their money that is on the line. It's ok to think about it from their point of view when they are as significant as they are in the transaction.

[CloudsAndTrees]

While I appreciate the other point of view as well, I know people need somewhere to live, but no one owes them that. They are responsible for providing their own housing. No one else has the responsibility to do that for them, yet you are taking as if landlords have some kind of obligation to people who can't afford to pay their own rent. And they don't. They just don't.

[TheRealFellatio]

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.

Absolutely clouds - most excellently put.

[whois]

Insurance, mortgage, prejudice.

[DontmindifIdo]

curryeater - while looking down on it from above, I'd say it was more important for society as a whole to house the homeless.

It just doesn't follow that if you want to securely house the homeless, you should use other people's savings and investments to do it.

Every private rental is someone else's property, someone else's business. Like your haulage company example, if enough gets nicked, they go out of business. if a landlord gets burned too many times, they will go bankrupt and the house will be sold and still not be available for rental for someone who can't afford to buy.

There's still a risk with non-HB tenants, which is why most landlords as well as saying "no HB" also then insist on references, deposits, checking employment status (the first place I rented with DH we only got as I was also working, he could afford the rent on his own but was deemed a risk as he was self employed and hadn't been back in the UK for long, we were turned down by another agency).

The sort of person who decides to be a landlord (not accidental due to not being able to sell and needing to move) are the sort of 'risk averse' people because it's often seen as a safer investment than shares as at the end of a set period, you'll still own a house you could sell. A lot of people treat them as top ups to retirement funds, using the money coming in each month as a second pension assuming they could sell it to fund care homes without having to sell the one they live in. These are the sort of person if they can avoid a risk they will. If you can get a tenant for the rent you want while not having to take anyone who's on HB, has bad credit rating, keeps a pet that might damage your property, smoke, has an insecure job etc, then why would they take the decision to rent to someone who is any of those things?

[TheRealFellatio]

Yes whois - you are right, it is prejudice. It's legalised prejudice - exactly the same kind that allows an insurance company to charge ten times as much to insure a 17 year old boy to drive a car than it charges his 50 year old mother. It's about analysing risk.

[SirBoobAlot]

My landlord is wonderful, and I am a good tenant. Their condition with accepting HB was that the money came out of my bank account, instead of directly from the council, which is fine by me, and the way that most HB is paid.

So as much as I understand people saying that it comes down to insurance issues, surely, if most HB is paid this way, and a tenant has a guarantor, it shouldn't be an issue?

I'm in constant fear of being given my notice as it took me months to find my place.

[BernadetteRostenkowskiWolowitz]

i did not lie to a councilo_O:O . i had to rent privately because of prejudice . .

[BernadetteRostenkowskiWolowitz]

as for text speak not helping my case . prejydice exists. i have a strong "case". being on my phone doesnt chabge that.

[fergoose]

I guess we need more social housing then, also it may be regulated and tenants could be treated more fairly. the amount of private landlords must have increased in recent years - social housing sold off, low interest rates, landlords jumping on the gravy chain, house prices still being kept falsely high, etc.

[franklygoes]

Hi Op, just thought I'd let you know that some landlords out there do rent to HB - I do. At the moment I have a lovely family in my house, and I'm really hoping they'll stay longer. They claim HB as they have fled from a war torn area of the world, but some European heritage means half the family have ended up here - Mum and two children. Dad is still at risk on the other side of the world. I am happy that the deal benefits us both: my property wouldn't sell, but at least it isn't actively making me a loss every month and they get somewhere warm and safe and non-slummy to live. Which after what they've been through is the least they deserve. The insurance was a bit more, but not massively so. Yes, there is a risk, but I figure there is a risk to letting your house no matter who it is.

[SneezingwakestheJesus]

You don't have to tell your landlord if you start receiving it I think as long as you are in your original tenancy period. I had to tell my landlord because he had to sign a form because we were already into the rolling contract so the housing people wouldn't accept my tenancy agreement as proof I lived there still.

[specialsubject]

making money from renting property is not a crime, although plenty here seem to think it should be. Perhaps someone has sold a bigger house that they paid for by lots of hard work, downsized and used the 'change' to buy a second property for rental income. With current interest rates on savings, it is almost worth it.

so ignoring the anti-landlord brigade, it seems like the following changes would mean that landlords could rent more easily to HB claimants:

• not holding landlords responsible for recovery of fraudulent benefit claims
  
• paying HB direct to the landlords so the rent would be guaranteed
  
• ending the 'must get evicted to get a council flat' nonsense
  

solving these might reduce the risk, which would mean that insurance would be obtainable.

until then, reluctance to leave an asset worth £100k or so uninsured has to be understandable.

[whattimestea]

A private 3 bedroom rental here costs £550-650 per month. By comparison a 3 bedroom housing association house costs roughly £380 per month. You have assured tenancy once you've been in properly trouble free for one year. Then the house is yours for as long as you want it - obviously keeping up with rent etc. The LHA for a 3 bed is £110 so most folk renting privately have no choice but to top up their rent costs if receiving full benefit. That's not taking into account that the new benefit cap automatically reduces your housing benefit award if you are above the new threshold.

There is a major shortage of affordable social housing. In my town at present there are NO social houses available to bid for. Not one. Some people have no choice but to rent in a very expensive, private rental market.

Business is business. I appreciate that and no one is suggesting that landlords should all be socially or morally obligatedto house people in their properties. However, there is a serious problem with people who claim all/a little HB being treated unfairly when it comes to renting privately. I think that its awful that a mortgage provider/insurer can stipulate the type of tenant a landlord canrent to in the terms of the policy. That just doesn't sit right with me at all.

A process that completely disregards a person based on absolutely nothing else but how a legitimate income is received is wrong.

[itsallyourownfault]

I'm a landlord and I wouldn't rent to any DSS tenants because they are not the sort of person I want in my house. That's my choice. My house, my risk, my decision. That may make me judgemental but when I work hard enough to own properties, that's my prerogative.

[SneezingwakestheJesus]

They are not the sort of person you want in your house? You do realise we aren't all Jeremy Kyle rejects and are not all of the same sort? Its fair enough to rule people out just in case they are the worst type of dss tenant but its a bit stupid to say they are one and all the same sort.

[JakeBullet]

itsallyourownfault....really good name choice.

You DO know we are not all scum don't you? or are you guilty of tarring anyone who HAS to claim HB with the same brush. Some of us have 30 years of work behind us.

[JakeBullet]

In fact....fuck right off! There...now I am not the sort of person you want in your house(s) because I am VERY rude to judgemental arseholes who cannot see beyond their own prejudices.

[itsallyourownfault]

I didn't say you were scum, or Jeremy Kyle rejects. Just not the sort of people I'd risk renting my house to. Mind you, I doubt anyone on benefits could afford to rent any of my properties, but if they could I'd definitely not consider it.

[TheBigJessie]

I know an unemployed Oxbridge graduate on housing benefit! Looks after the house properly, too.

[JakeBullet]

"not the sort of people" you want

You are not real are you?

[TheBigJessie]

JakeBullet is astute, I think... I've just clocked the name: itsallyourownfault

[CautionaryWhale]

Sorry to hear of your situation OP

I rent out my house - the insurance and mortgage do indeed stipulate no DHSS so when my lovely tenant went on HB we spoke with my bank and insurers and her dad acted as guarantor and they agreed she could stay.

The only thing that would put me off these days is if the council would urge those in receipt of HB to stay put were I to give 2 months proper notice - i.e. '' if you leave you are making yourself homeless'' but they say that to anyone asking for help with accommodation I think whether in receipt of benefits or not.

Am aware noone would choose to break contracts if have kids and nowhere to go but I have 3 DC and should be allowed back in my home if need to
live there again and have given the correct and legal notice period (Sorry for the derail)

Best of luck to you x