No DSS, No Smokers, No Pets

[JustAnotherPoster00]

Sick of seeing those 3 on every single house I look at, I'm disabled (mainly MH related) and I need to move but can't simply because of those

The no DSS is rubbish and I can see why that is an issue.
I think no smokers and no pets is actually fair enough.

Tell me about it. Pet is our biggest issue, though I live in an area where all the nicer rentals are either for students or 'working professionals only'. Our place is also none-smoking, but I used to go down the side of the house (quit now).

Could you speak the estate agents?

I found a number of 2 bed plus houses that said no kids.

It's really annoying but if you speak to the estate agents many are flexible if you have the deposit yourself. We found that in Devon anyway. Trying to get anything in the London area was impossible.

My mum is disabled - she spoke to the estate agent who told her lots of landlords don't want people who they perceive to be "work shy" (ie on job seekers allowance) because they think they'll wreck the property. They were willing to take my mum because she had good references from her previous landlord. If they know your personal circumstances they may well make an exception to the"no DSS" rule. Definitely speak to the estate agent.

We've also negotiated exceptions to the no pet rule by paying a larger deposit.

Why would you expect a LL to allow pets and smoking? Pets cause smells and damage and smoking makes the house stink and is a fire risk!

No smoking and no pets I understand. Is DSS easy for the LL or a PITA?

I can see the no DSS is a pain, and I sympathise about the pets, but why would anyone risk renting to a smoker?

The LL could never be certain they wouldn't smoke in the house (I'm sure you wouldn't but they don't know that) & the place could end up smelly at best, needing total redecoration at worst.

My parents looked at a house that smokers were selling once and it was utterly disgusting - yellowed walls & ceilings & the stench everywhere. And apparently the sellers were oblivious. I know that's an extreme example but that's what I'd be worrying about.

A lot of the time DSS is stipulated as a no-no in the landlords mortgage agreement.

It's wrong and it's a nightmare.

I only got my rental after months of trying through estate agents because it was a private landlord and I emailed him and met with him.

Many of the referencing companies estates agents use even disallow disability benefits as 'income' when they're scoring your ability to pay.

No DSS could also be for insurance purposes. When I got quotes in for LL insurance a few years ago the premium was a decent amount higher if the tenants were HB recipients.
I think tjheu assume HB recipients are bad woiwoith money and won't pay, which maybe true for some but definitely not all HB recipients.

Our mortgage lenders stipulated that we could not lend to someone in receipt of housing benefit.

I suspect many disallow disability benefits when scoring, because they are aware the Government may take them away.

I wouldn't rent to smokers or pet owners either.

It makes no sense with the Dss as if the home owner looses thier income HB will cover the morgage

I can understand no smoking or dss. At the end of the day the landlord perfectly entitled to want a tenant with means of paying rent. I don't like the ones saying no children. I think that is actually discriminating. Children need a home at the end of the day.

I am a landlord. My only real stipulation is non-smoker with good credit checks.

I have actually found that some agents automatically put these things in their marketing spiel without necessarily asking me, so it is always worth enquiring further rather than just accepting everything at face value.

Most tenants where I live do smoke so they presumably just lie to the landlord. Horrible for the neighbours!

Certainly in the past those reliant on HB found it took months for their claim to be processed, causing severe cash-flow problems for the landlord. Hope they're better processing the claims now, but I strongly suspect not.

My last tenant was on HB and I had no issue with it. She paid her rent and other than a couple of fairly minor issues it all went well. Until I needed the property back. I gave her 3 month' notice and she asked the local Council to house her and her 3 DC. They refused until she was actually officially homeless which meant I had to go through the trouble and expense of the eviction process which can take months.

In the end she found somewhere privately ( which like the OP was very hard for her) but I didn't get a refund from the court even though there was no hearing or Possession Order required.

So unfortunately I doubt I would want to consider a benefit recipient again. The risk of something similar happening is just too great. Also, best will in the world, a young professional couple ( every LLs golden Grail) is a lot less wear and tear on the property.

However, I blame the local council for the situation here, they bought themselves time at my expense and put my former tenant through a huge amount of stress and uncertainty.

I heard of a recent rental that said no kids.

"the premium was a decent amount higher if the tenants were HB recipients. "

My landlord doesn't even know when I'm on HB, so not sure how that insurance works when the tenants have jobs when they first move in, but then lose them and ask the council not to inform the LL.

Even if someone is a smoker, how many people smoke indoors now? Pets you can generally get around - well, we've done it but I suppose the fact we fit their 'working professionals ' crap meant they are willing to negotiate with us.

The no DSS is discriminatory and shouldn't be allowed - if it's coming from mortgage lenders, they shouldn't be allowed.

The whole phrase is reminiscent of the shameful 'no dogs, no blacks, no Irish' stipulations of the 70s.

Basically if you're at all vulnerable, this country isn't interested.

One of the risks of renting to someone on HB is that if you were to issue then with a notice of repossession, then they may find it difficult to find another house, and if they approach the council for a property then they will be instructed to stay put until the bailiffs arrive to evict (doing otherwise would be making themselves "intentionally homeless") which equals a HUGE and expensive headache for the LL.

I have a flat that a let out and I would not rent it to anyone on HB for this reason.

I am a LL and lease a property to a local housing association. The house is let to what the HA describes as 'social tenants'. However wrong it is, although I must have insurance by the terms of my lease with HA, it is substantially higher than "ordinary" insurance (equates to over a month's rent for the year). Insurance companies may try to paint themselves as some kind of service but they are businesses. Would it be possible for you to undertake never to smoke inside the property? As to pets... goldfish fine, but if a tenant has a "pissy" cat or dog it can be a problem. Replacing carpets etc will be at the LL'S own expense, cannot come off insurance I do not think and cannot be set against tax. Re carpeting an entire property will cost the LL further. I lease to a HA precisely so that a family can come off the local housing list - the rent I get is lower than a private rent but the expenses are the same.

Sorry, not helpful to you I realise. Can you offer extra deposit in case of pet damage, ask for a clause about smoking outside? Sorry this is causing you such difficulty.

I can understand the no smoking and no pets, My sister is a private renter with 2 big dogs and the house and garden are destroyed. Sadly, the LL is a family member and it's been let slide.

The no DSS is usually because it can be reneged with no reason and then you can get into debt very quickly.

Do go in and see agents though and explain your circumstance. As PP upthread said, sometimes it's added without the LL asking them to.