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

"Even if someone is a smoker, how many people smoke indoors now? "

Lots! It's an addiction isn't it. They may go outside when they have children, but the other adult they live with is likely to be a smoker too and they won't care about the neighbours.

Gwenhwyfar

Be prepared to be sued if things go wrong.
If your Landlords insurance is based on you, the tenant, being in full time employment as a cow manouverer and now your une!ployed, your landlords insurance is void. You're landlord is now uninsured and if anything goes wrong they would be within their rights to sue ypou for costs, which they would easily win as you haven't informed them of the change.
Oh, and dependant on ypour lease, ypou may be in breach and the landlord could evict you with little to no notice.

Obviously this is based on my experience with my insurers around 6 years ago, so it may be different now.

Re home your pet and stop smoking. You might be able to talk a ll round with just the one negative?

I thought the no DSS thing was to do with housing benefits being paid to the recipient now - thus increasing the risk of non payment - whereas before they were paid direct to the LL?

Did I dream that?

Slightly off topic but this always pisses me off because the DSS doesn't even exist anymore- it has been rebranded as JCP etc, in the same way than no one collects a 'giro' anymore.

I was a landlord for a time. I rented to a lovely girl who was working/claiming benefits and also had 2 kittens.

The amount of hassle I had with the local council over the payment of housing benefit was ridiculous; they could (and did) stop payments if they felt like it, leaving me with no rent for several months at a time. So that's why I wouldn't have accepted DSS again. (This is a few years ago, so not sure if they system has improved since)

As for pets ... when the tenant moved out the house was absolutely riddled with cat fleas. It took two visits from the Rentokil man before it was finally clear.

So it's not just all landlords being horrible honestly!

I totally get the smoking thing though; it can mean thoroughly redecorating/replacing carpets so it's definitely more costly.

Well my DP smokes and he has never once smoked in the house - we now own our own place and there's no smoking inside.

In any event, I'd imagine the no smoking requirement is pretty easy to get around.

People on housing benefit have been demonised in the press and by the government as feckless and lazy. The no DSS rule is undoubtedly exacerbated by that stereotype.

Anyone can damage somebodies property if they're an arsehole. Being underpaid / in receipt of benefits doesn't make you an arsehole.

So LL have to pay more for insurance and that's the turn off? Big deal! Don't pretend you offer a service when your 'service' is only offered to certain people.

Verybitchy - HB could - when I received it years ago anyway - be paid either to the LL or the individual. I think it's changed and I'm pretty sure it will definitely change under universal credit.

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.

as do people receiving housing benefit .

When I was a LL, my mortgage company stipulated 'professionals only'. I think that's quite common if you have a buy to let mortgage.

i think you are mistaking service with charity karim

This:

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

and

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.

Anecdotally, the DSS tenants I've had have also turned out to be the epitome of work-shy, aggressive takers - one is in the process of suing me for the return of their £500 deposit when the left with £2,500 rent arrears. I appreciate that not everyone is, but those are the ones I've had. By contrast, the private tenants I've had have been proactive with repairs and kept the place looking good. So, unless someone comes along to offer me a lot more money to take the risk on an HB tenant, never again.

My mil has a couple of rental properties and she had no issues with people on Housing benefits.
However, after finally managing the evict her tenants from Hell last year she then got a letter from her local council saying that as they fraudulently claimed HB and it was paid directly to her she had to repay it all.
So not only did she lose £10000 in damages and unpaid rent she is now facing repaying the small amount of rent she DID manage to get.
She won't rent to people on benefits again.

How is renting to a person in receipt of HB a charity? A LL's mortgage gets paid by somebody else and yet that person is supposedly the charity?!

The same as others who mentioned why they won't rent to DSS anymore. We did and it was a nighmare getting the property back! They refused to move until rehomed (which is the right thing for them) and the council refusing to rehome. Between courts, eviction and everything else we decided not to go down that route again. No smokers and pets is common. Unless you do a 3 month deposit.

very in some cases it is still paid direct. Usually when it's pretty likely the tenants will keep it and not pay the LL. Often the tenants have to top up

Hopping - that's crap and unfair for her. Presumably if a private tenant does the same thing she'll step away from being a landlord?

We're no housing benefit, no pets and no smoking as well. For all the reasons given.

We did allow a hamster for one tenant but would never allow a cat or dog, caged pets only would be our exception.

If you end up worse off by renting to hb tenants than private.

Eastern I was just coming on to write a very similar experience. Stopped payments forced us to refuse HB tenants.

I think people are saying that a person on hb is much more likely to default.

We rented to a so called friend who's two dogs and child destroyed my house. I've no problem with HB at all but pets and smoking sorry but no thank you

I remember looking at a house which was so freshly decorated and carpeted it was spotless. I went with 3 yo dd. I said to the vendor I have a cat would that be a problem. He said well actually I think a child will be a problem! I could understand both to be honest.

No smokers is understandable. I live in a rental place where the last tenant smoked, and the smell stays for a long time. This is after the curtains and most of the carpets were replaced by the LL. It's mostly clear now, although I still get whiffs of it. Previous viewers had been put off by the smell, but since it was one of the very few properties that allowed pets, we thought it was worth the extra cleaning/airing.

I'm amazed that 'no children' adverts are legal. I saw quite a few, including some through letting agents. Surely it's age discrimination?

Gumtree seems to be the best place to find HB/pet friendly landlords. Letting agents are absolutely useless in these situations, and very black and white about things. If you can contact the LL directly and explain the situation, they are often much more open to different people.

Lots of mortgage companies say no HBs, but also did you know that if someone is claiming HBs when they shouldn't be and the council finds out, they reclaim it off the landlord. The tenant gets to live rent-free in a house for however long and the landlord ends up massively out of pocket. It's not like you can verify someone's HB claim either.