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

It took ages to find a house that would let us have dcat still with us, we agreed extra terms for our house now, professional carpet clean, flea bombing at the end of tenancy and an extra 500 deposit. I could never get rid of dcat, she's my baby!

You may not get an eviction order for smoking (I haven't looked into it so I don't know if you can or not) however you can certainly get a section 21 after six months - so same result really.

And, as I and others above have said, surely 'no smokers' is just shorthand for 'no smoking in the house'. Two different things.

Wow. I have the impossible task in my work of trying to find properties for vulnerable people. Some have a pet, just like some landlords or homeowners, I usually have to let them know that there is no way anyone will rent to them and that although that pet is all they have in the world they are not equal to everyone else and because they didn't inherit money or because of their disabilities they will never be able to live somewhere where they can have a pet. It is so unfair. Landlords get richer on ridiculous rents, why no cap? My mortgage is £500 pm if I rented this place it would cost £1400pm. How can anyone save up and get on the housing ladder? Government paying stupid amounts in HB to landlords raking it in Grrr.

Also, the reason tenants stay after eviction is so that they don't make themselves intentionally homeless, this is what all councils tell them to do. If they leave when landlord wants they get no help.

moodyking feel free to campaign for the building/renovation of more council properties, then there will be no need for people on HB to rent from your detested private landlords. Good luck finding a politician who will do anything about it, or stop right to buy in England.

meantime it sounds like you would prefer that landlords don't accept HB tenants - that way they don't 'rake in' public money. Of course houses are free so there is no cost involved in providing or maintaining them. It's all pure profit.

as I may have mentioned, a tenant doesn't need to be on HB to want/need a council property. And as you say, the council (despite instruction otherwise) will insist they stay until eviction, collecting a CCJ for £1k or more as they do.

insanity all round.

They would be quite equal to lots of home owners who are unable to keep a dog because they work too long hours to service their debt. Do remember renters have a safety net which is not available to home owners. If I can't pay the mortgage I get repossessed. No chance of HB anymore!

its because they haven't got anywhere for the tenants and are desprate so even a few weeks can be a help to them also often a lot of the tenants that private rent are people who have been evicted from council homes so they will literally have no were for them to go if they don't try and keep them in the property

Not all areas are like that though and they still do it. The county I lived in had quite a lot of spaces in emergency accommodation and it was really nice too (I lived in one!).

Unless there is absolutely no where to place people then advising people to stay put just causes everyone problems. You have a Tennant living in a property they know they aren't wanted in and could be forcibly evicted from any day with no notice, a landlord/lady losing money because they're forced to go to the high Court plus rent may not be being paid.

Even in the most amicable situation where the Tennant is paying rent and the landlord understands that they're only staying because the council are forcing them it's still a ridiculous counter productive way to do it.

The government needs to bring in some way for landlords to provide the council with proof that they have to evict without having to go to the high Court.

Specialsubject I am just saying that none of it is fair. Most landlords are not renting out their properties to 'provide' housing, they would probably rather no one actually lived in them. It is there to make them money. Vulnerable people are expected to put up with worse and worse places as housing benefit doesn't actually cover the rent and they don't have earnings to top up the extortionate rent because they are disabled and don't work. Only the worst properties will go to these people as no one else wants them and try are expected to be grateful that they accept housing benefit. Life is not fair I suppose but a society that treats the vulnerable like vermin is not progressing IMO.

If landlords are raking it in then housing associations must be very rich companies.

Smokers usually smell of it and an on-the-ball letting agent should notice.

I can understand the 'no DSS' if your insurance precludes it, but the whole 'it costs too much to evict' baffles me. In my experience a non-hb claiming tenant is just as likely to be shit with cash and end up not paying their rent. The two most expensive tenants I had were a single, professional, guy who turned out to be a gambler. Cost me a fortune to be rid of him. Then a tenant who was made redundant and wouldn't claim benefits out of pride because he was so sure he'd get a new job.

Maybe it helps that the local council know me as a LL and because I've ended up taking on a couple of people when they've been desperately trying to find somewhere for them (not that I have lots places, just they tend to know when my tenant has been allocated a council house and the likes) they've always made the process as easy as possible.

Try speaking to LL's directly if you can. My tenants, and my last three, are on hb for disability reasons. It's way more secure for me than someone working in the a local factory that makes redundancies regularly.

I ask for no smoking in the flat and do pets on a case by case basis. I wouldn't trust an agent though, the one time I went against my own instinct was gambling guy.

The guide dog issue is scandalous.

moodykingfisher If you keep a dog and it damages your furniture and pisses on the carpet - fine, if it's your home, your furniture, and your carpet. Not fine if it isn't, especially if you have signed a binding agreement not to keep a dog.

And dogs kept in flats so often means mess and stink in the common parts and noise at any hour. If you have any consideration for your neighbours ou won't do it and if you do it you have no consideration.

Sympathies to you op. It must be very hard. I take it that your local council or housing associations can't help you? There is some good advice on this thread about speaking to landlords direct though. It does seem a shame that some legislation (and this thread has opened my eyes to it) makes things harder for tenants and landlords alike.

Maybe the LLs who say no smokers now have had smoking tenants in the past who insisted on smoking inside.

"No DSS" is terrible and judgemental. I still get part housing benefit and am still in the same poky flat I've been in for 2 years because no other private landlords will touch me. I'm lucky to have this one to be honest. I can't get a council place because I'm not in urgent need (plus I don't really want one). I have paid my rent and bills on time my whole life, I'm tidy, I don't smoke, I never have anyone over but because I get some benefits I won't even be considered by the majority of landlords.

It's all very backwards. There's a shortage of council properties but no private landlords will take people on benefits because of pre conceived ideas. Feel for you OP.

BitchQueen90 Did you not read that many private LLs are bound by the terms of their mortgage not to take DSS? And that the insurance is more?

"Everyone seems to hate renting, the tenants, not much joy in it for the landlords either I honestly wondering who's winning here ?"

I like renting. I like being able to move and not having the responsibility of all the maintenance. I think it's been seen as something only for the very poor or young in this country and we haven't developed proper laws to govern it. People often point to how renting is done on the continent, but having lived in Belgium, I would really caution against that kind of system. As a tenant, I didn't like being responsible for much of the maintenance or, and most importantly, having such long contracts, 3 years at a minimum.

I would say the chances of your getting a place when you're completely on benefits, smoke and have a pet are slim to none.

"BitchQueen90 Did you not read that many private LLs are bound by the terms of their mortgage not to take DSS? And that the insurance is more?"

Big joke, because plenty of people are on HB without their landlords knowing about it because they were not on it when they first rented.

True but if it hits the fan the landlords insurance then won't pay out. I'm no fan of but to let but nobody deserves to lose everything they've worked for

I say pets welcome if the human is civilised. But then my dog and cat owning tenants seem to stay for years so minding get the chance to say it very often. We even have the fences "serviced" every year. By far the nicest people have dogs.

Whose winning? Well I am knowing I provide a decent rental home without exploiting anyone. After 3 years we give a months free rent much against my accountants advice. We make sure that we deal with problems immediately and don't leave people helpless in a shit hole with no heating. In return they are paying the mortgage so when we retire we can live there. Win win for me but then I think people who buy propertaaaay as those wankarses on homes under the hammer call houses should be forced to watch it on a loop until they die of consumption.

The reality is, you tell them you don't smoke then do what you like.
This is the exact attitude that makes landlords not want to rent to anyone who might be even a slight risk!

Bitchqueen no preconceived ideas or judgement here...just bitter experience.

I wouldn't want a smoker in our flat even if they did smoke outside, lots of cigarette butts doesn't give a good impression