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

RTB is not under the bridge really though is it ? Make me lol to be honest, the government has basically conned LL's into providing a service the council used to have to by promising capital gains because when all said and done LL's aren't making a profit month in month out. And yet they've lowered the interest rates to zero so where these capital gains are coming from nobody knows.
Quite amusing really

RTB is water under the bridge as regards properties already sold - that's all I meant.

This kind of sums up the issue with renting. Most LL don't want long term 14 year lets. They want to let the property out for a year or two.

Really? If I were a LL I'd prefer a long term tenant rather than having the cost of turning around a property every couple of years (or less) My LL must have lost lots of money when his other properties were empty between tenants & the cost of cleaning & refurbs each time. Of the other 3 I know well he's had to fork out for new kitchens, new bathrooms, white goods & furniture just to get them relet. Mine? New bathroom & new cooker after 12yrs & no months without rent.

" the cost of cleaning & refurbs each time"

Plenty of landlords don't bother with this.
I think some like to change tenants regularly so they can increase the rent.

Long term tenants are far less trouble and expense than high turnover ones. The trouble is, some types of tenancy are by their nature always going to be short term. Students, doctors or lecturers on secondment to a hospital or a university, armed forces, people working on a large project in the area then leaving when their contract is finished, young professional sharers etc.

A family who can pay their own rent comfortably, that wants to put down roots and stay long term, and is happy to make the house a well kept home, looking after the garden etc., is nice, easy work if you can get it.

Gwen they can ask for a rent increase anyway. The ideal situation would be to do this without having to change tenants. No-one wants to kick out a good tenant so they can put the rent up by a small margin only to have to pay the whole of the first month's rent in arrangement fees anyway, and then to keep repeating the process every year or two. That just doesn't make sense.

Good luck convincing the haters of that ....

And of course outside the holy bottom right hand corner, rents are limited by market forces anyway.

Btw a long term tenant works for me, and pets are a possible. Animals arent into drugs as far as i know.

catam you would want to be able to get rid of bad tenants as easily as possible and be able to raise the rent when the market/costs went up. You may want to be able to give your tenants notice so you can move back in yourself. Which is why pretty much all privare rentals are short term

We rent and came to meet our landlords before we moved in. They originally wanted no pets and we have a cat and a fish. They liked us and allowed us to move even with pets (no chance of us getting rid of them) and it's in our tenancy agreement that we pay for any damage caused (which we would anyway).

I have seen many properties for rent saying no children. If I had a property to rent I would rather have long term tenants and just redecorate.

I honestly don't understand why people think landlords discriminate against DSS. You receive DSS because you cannot afford to pay the rent based on your salary, no? So by that logic, a bank would discriminate against me wanting to take out a bigger mortgage than I could afford to repay them!

Good point Abyss I think people forget that landlords have mortgages to pay and are going to pick the most financially reliable person (among other factors) they can. I do have a DSS tenant in my house but it's very low cost living and not hard to afford hoping the OP doesnt bizarelly accuse me of benefits bashing again

Anyone with any intelligence understands that the problem is what happens to those people who aren't viable propositions, where exactly are they supposed to live ?

Pisssssedofff

Have you an answer to your own question?

If it involves forcing private LLs to let to them it isn't an answer.

Just as there are some people who are just not employable.

"people forget that landlords have mortgages to pay"

I've never had a landlord that had a mortgage to pay (on the properly where I was living). They have all owned the property outright.

"You receive DSS because you cannot afford to pay the rent based on your salary, no? "

The housing benefit is supposed to pay (most of) your rent so there shouldn't be a difference in theory.

"by that logic, a bank would discriminate against me wanting to take out a bigger mortgage than I could afford to repay them!"

Not really the same thing. You do not NEED mortgage. You might like one, but you can live without one, by, for example, renting. A person NEEDS a roof above their head. Can you see the difference.

"Anyone with any intelligence understands that the problem is what happens to those people who aren't viable propositions, where exactly are they supposed to live ?"

This is where the state sector (council housing) should step in. Andrew is right that the private sector cannot solve every problem.

No I don't have an answer at all.
But I'm in the position where I earn £40,000 plus and yet can't get a rental or mortgage due to a peculiar - granted - situation. I can't imagine being somebody with no savings or back up, literally I do not know what they would do.

But Gwen it's been pushed to the private sector when the state housing stock was sold off and now much of it is in the hands of private land lords and that clearly was the plan from the outset.

^A person NEEDS a roof above their head.

Yes, but that does not place an obligation on any particular LL to provide it.

The LL-bashers need to remember the Rent Acts. As houses were at last freed from sitting tenants LLs did them up and sold them to owner-occupiers. If you make being an LL too hard the same thing will happen, and much more quickly because tenancies are shorter now. Nice for would-be homeowners but disastrous for those who don't want to to buy or are never going to be able to.

"Yes, but that does not place an obligation on any particular LL to provide it."

When did I say that it does? In fact, I make it clear that some kind of state housing is necessary for some tenants.

"If you make being an LL too hard the same thing will happen, and much more quickly because tenancies are shorter now. Nice for would-be homeowners but disastrous for those who don't want to to buy or are never going to be able to."

Wouldn't more houses on the market bring the prices down thus making buying more affordable?

"But Gwen it's been pushed to the private sector when the state housing stock was sold off and now much of it is in the hands of private land lords and that clearly was the plan from the outset."

Yes, so we need to push for local authorities to buy more houses for people to rent from them.

So what about the people on minimum wage etc? Not everyone can be a doctor or a solicitor, and that's OK. However there are areas of the country where renting a two bedroom house is equilivilant to the take home pay of a nurse or police officer. So what do you do then?

Not everyone on housing benefit is a low life work shy sort. That needs to be acknowledged.

I'm gonna get stuck in with reading this thread as soon as I've wrote this message.
The landlords are in an awful position with benefit claimants. I've rented privately whilst on and off benefits. There was a point where I had nothing and due to a change of circs I'd just put in a claim for HB, they took forever to sort out my claim, landlord was threatening notice to quit within about 4 days I think it was.
Housing benefit team were telling me, oh no, landlord accepts you being a benefit tenant. He will have to understand you pay 4 weeks in arrears. I usually pay ahead. I was having kittens. When they finally paid it was 4 weeks short.

Then there's the crappy system where they pay the tenant who usually has very little, so it often doesn't reach the LL, then there's the every 4 weeks that rent is payable from HB instead of every month in time for rent.

Then there's the small minority who absolutely trash the places they've occupied. It must just seem like the risk isn't worth it for people to take.

Sad as it is. I've also been there where no one wants to rent to you for this. At the moment I have that issue with our credit scores...no idea how to set up the guarantor thing with a direct landlord, but that is the only thing that will change it for us. Do you have a guarantor who can help?