To think it's disgusting the amount of landlords who won't accept DSS?

[7hup]

My friend is 36 and just been kicked out by her boyfriend because she had a mental breakdown and multiple suicide attempts .

She's just been released from hospital and has been given a B&B room as temporary accommodation.

She has to claim universal credit as she is in no fit state to work.

Council said if she can find private housing they will cover her first month's rent/deposit/fees.

No where takes housing benefit.

It's unfair.

There's no council accommodation and no private landlords will accept it.

She's 36. No children. No pets. Doesn't drink. Doesn't smoke. Is quiet and polite. Keeps to herself. Clean and tidy. She just needs a home :(

Its working people too. My Dsis has a kid and can't move out of my mums because she works only 16 hours because of her son so would receive housing benefit. So she can't move either.

Even on Spareroom. Co. UK in our area there are 674 rooms.

ONE takes DSS. And is dou le the price of similar rooms

It's so unfair :(

It isn’t possible to “just buy a property” in many, many areas of the country. When I lived in the SE, I had no chance, even though my wage at the time was above the national average. I was a lodger at first, then shared a rented flat with a friend. When he didn’t want to share anymore, I had to move further out and doubled my commute (thankfully I worked for a rail company so got a discounted season ticket) because that was the only area I could (just) afford that was still a (just) bearable commute. Although a mortgage was cheaper than rent (£700 vs £900), I’d have needed a years salary as deposit. Before I moved there was no way I could private rent as I didn’t even earn enough to pay tax, unemployment is high in the area I lived in, didn’t qualify for any benefits/help as I was single with no DC. Shelters advice? “Just try and save”. I was . Even in what people think of as cheaper areas, people are priced out as wages are lower and full time jobs hard to come by.

This thread honestly makes me scared if something were to happen to leave me at the mercy of private renting. Illness/accident/bereavement can happen to anyone you know?

This thread is really full of stereotypes as I've said before I work full time but vet some hb it's paid straight to me and I have never even been late paying my rent I would go without other things to make sure it is paid and have. I'm amazed how many people seem to think everyone on hb doesn't work/only works a couple of hours a week and that they don't have any idea about money.

I know a lot of people say well they can just get better jobs but if every one gets better jobs who will do the caring, work in supermarkets, clean, be teaching assistance and do all the jobs that mean you can't afford a home? I know it's not up to priivate landlords but the whole housing situation in this country is messed up.

Sorry for the spelling mistakes haven't put my glasses on yet.

Even if you are lucky enough to find a place that takes HB you’re then trapped there because even if you can provide evidence that you’ve met your rent on time for years with LL references and bank statements no one will accept you at another property without a guarantor.
My sister is in a property she can’t really afford paying £1700 rent a month but she can’t move anywhere cheaper because even though she can demonstrate she’s met that rent for 18 months with no defaults (even though it’s killing her) no LL will accept she can afford properties with cheaper rents because she claims HB in addition to her FT job

She has a ‘good’ job as well working as a medical secretary but she doesn’t earn over £45000

FIllness/accident/bereavement can happen to anyone you know?*
It certainly does, hence the importance to budget some insurance. The answer is always I would of I could afford it, but the I heard this from the mouth of people who proudly announced that they bought their kids nice phones, talk about yet another trip to the High Street, or that they decided to get a new car because they got a good deal on credit and its better to have a reliable car anyway.

I'm sure some people genuinely can't afford it but I also believe some people can't because of how they prioritise their spending.

@hedgwigradio, it is not so much a question of stereotype but risk. I would never rent to friends because friends and business don't mix, but I would in theory be happ to rent to any of thrm if they were on benefits. The reason is that I know them. They wouldn't be defined by their status.

Whrn I get potential tenants, I don't know anything about them but what's on paper. A reference is useless because a current landlord desperate to see thrm go will give a good reference to do so. I've now realised that meeting them once doesn't do the trick either because it's easy to pretend.

I don't have an issue renting to people claiming HB, I have an issue with my fear of having to go through the eviction process, which could happen with anyone but is much more likely with someone relying on benefits.

swingofthings I’d be interested to know what would change your mind on this? Would having HB paid directly to you sway you. You must be able to see that having large swathes of housing stock denied to the people who need it is wrong but I can understand why as an individual you need to think about risk too. Things can’t continue as they are.

Even if you could potentially save up enough money to cover private rent for a few years what good would that be if landlords just write you off as dole scum?

you are right that it is terrible. the blame lies squarely with the Tories whose policies have directly and deliberately created this situation.

Firstly, with right-to-buy, which isn't wrong in itself but Tory policy forbade councils from recycling the proceeds of the sale of homes under right-to-buy into building new social housing stock so obviously there now isn't enough.

Secondly, which is related to the above. Because of the severe lack of social housing created by this deliberate policy, councils will do anything to absolve themselves of the responsibility to house someone in need. This means that if the tenant of a private landlord is asked to leave for any reason (eg if they can't afford the rent or if the landlord wants to sell) then they simply must not leave if they can't find an alternative without council help, as the council will only help them if they refuse to leave and force the landlord to start expensive and time-consuming eviction procedures. Leaving a property when asked to do so, without an eviction order, is defined as "making yourself intentionally homeless" and the council doesn't have to help you. that is an absolute travesty.

Thirdly through policies designed to deliberately ensure that those on benefits do not have a secure income - there are so many conditions and sanctions and assessments that anyone on benefits simply can no longer be sure what their income will be from one month to the next so will always be an unreliable tenant.

Fourthly, through the policies that encouraged band nurtured an army of buy-to-let landlords who have the legal responsibility for the properties without actually owning them - they are owned by the banks and the majority of the rent goes to the bank as mortgage payment with the BTL landlord keeping a fairly modest slice. This forces landlords to demand a reliable rental income as they are obliged to pay a set mortgage amount every month regardless of how much rent they receive. if rental properties were fully owned as capital assets by the same individual or corporation that acts as landlord this would be less of an issue because then any fluctuations of income from a tenant in financial difficulty just becomes an accepted feature of that sort of investment. like any investment, returns are variable.

Its the fact that the landlords are mostly buy-to-let combined with the effects of the three other factors above that mean that pretty much all landlords have insurance which stipulates "no DSS".

We need a fundamental restructure of how the entire rental sector is owned, managed and insured, which creates a pathway for people who don't have a secure income to nevertheless have security in housing.

No gamer because my biggest concern is in relation to the eviction process. I work FT in a demanding job whilst juggling children and what I fear the most is extra stress and demand on my time.

The nature of the property I owe means that it is extremely high in demand. I will easily get professionals interest in it. The risk of having to evict professionals is much lower because they are more likely to have access to funds to allow them to move, and will in turn be more attractive to future landlords.

I do feel for people who struggle to find properties, but I don't consider it my responsibility to ensure their wellbeing at my own financial and emotional risk, especially when I was myself in that position and had no one but my own self to look after me and my kids.

As I said, I was 'nice' twice and twice got bitten by families who couldn't have cared less about me back. The hurt and stress has led me to that sense of emotional detachment.

Some awful comments on this thread ......sadly fits in with the deserving and non deserving poor ethos that's so prevalent. Article in the guardian last week about how 40% of all ex council properties have been snapped up by private landlords and a huge percentage of those are owned by a relatively small number of them so many cheaper properties are lost to the first time buyers market. Not read the whole thread but suspect a lot of landlords are amateurs who've bought very cheap and have narrow profit margins...

Oh come off it! Damage a wall by putting a picture up?

I've had a tenant drill through windows for a TV ariel, drill straight into electrics hanging a picture and another hang a big mirror only to crack the plaster and leave a gaping hole - the wall had to be re-skimmed.

That's why landlords require permission, not because they're mean but to simply be aware and minimise damage if the event of alterations.

I have a blanket 'no' because once you say yes to a few things then ineviably the tenant would do more and more.

I've been a tenant and I never dreamt of altering the house to suit me. It wasn't MY house.

swingifthings it does look like legislation is the only way forward than unfortunately.

PeaQiwiComHequo
I’ve got no love for the Tories but Labour did nothing to change the actions the Tories put in motion. There is blame on both sides of the house.

Same as swing. I'm a landlord. I started off renting to people in receipt of benefits on the basis that I trusted my ability to assess on an individual basis whether a particular family/person would take care of the property. Ha! Two lo-ong eviction processes later, with all the associated stress, cost, property repair - because one of these lovely tenants took a shit on the living room carpet and destroyed the electrics - I just wouldn't. And I'm sure there are lots of great HB tenants who would be no trouble at all, but I'm apparently unable to find them.

As I said, I was 'nice' twice and twice got bitten by families who couldn't have cared less about me back. The hurt and stress has led me to that sense of emotional detachment.

Hedwigsradio- people not realising that many thousands of people working full time have to claim HB to make ends meet is a problem. It’s as if these people are hidden benefits claimants. Even some people that receive housing benefit or council tax benefit don’t see themselves as being on benefit, as they are either working or retired (yet state pension is a benefit)

At present though we have the highest employment in 40 years and 800000 jobs vacant

No- I don’t think it’s terrible - I think it’s sensible and as a landlord I wouldn’t rent to DSS either!

Take your frustrations out on the government who ‘should’ be helping with issues like this! It’s got nothing to do with landlords, they don’t ‘owe’ anybody anything. They’re private owners and can rent to who ever they like. They’re not the government- they have no moral obligation to put their goods in danger, violate the terms of their mortgages or make things more complicated for themselves!

When we were renting I was amazed by the amount of landlords that listed:
No DSS
No pets
No children
No sharers
Bearing in mind this was for a 3 bed 'family' house. They were basically saying working couples only and you can only use one of the 3 bedrooms. They could still find tenants with all those rules so took the attitude of 'why not'.
I get where the landlords are coming from but also think something needs to be done to help people on benefits who can't get social housing.

I get where the landlords are coming from but also think something needs to be done to help people on benefits who can't get social housing.

You can't force someone to rent their property to a particular person. The only way is to provide incentives to make it a better option for landlords to rent to certain demographics. In Australia, you can rent your property to Defence Housing who place serving families in them, they guarantee your rent, they will pay even if the property is empty, deal with a lot of the maintenance and make sure the property is returned in good condition. If councils were so keen on getting people into private rentals, they could do a similar thing which takes a lot of the risk away from the landlords.

The government needs to wake up an accept that this system doesn't work, the private rental market can't meet the needs of those who need social housing.

@aimingfor2019 sharers mean unrelated people. When certain number of people who are not related live in a property it becomes HMO with different rules for the LL

I have just spent 3 weeks tracing the family of a deceased women because my tenants complained of damp on their connecting wall. It was awful, I had to contact them whilst they are still grieving via the PM on social media (as they are overseas) and they had to arrange a house visit, all whilst feeling guilty that the death of their sister & subsequent vacant property was causing a family problems ...

... and it turned out my bloody tenants had been drying clothes on the radiator and not airing the property, thus causing mould.

They have a little girl, so naturally I was straight onto the 'problem'. The same when they reported a 'noisy thermostat' (replaced), a dripping tap (washer changed same day) and 'smelly garage' (dead rat from vacant property next door, surely they could have found this themselves).

Not all LL are cunts, not all tenants engage brains, but sure as hell none of us are in this for fun. If the LA paid rent direct I would happily accept DSS (having met them beforehand), but they don't.

Apparently the number of properties being let are plummeting as new tax laws are making letting unprofitable. With a dwindling pool of properties LL's will surely be even more choosy who they let to!
So be careful what you wish for OP - the "elitist scum" may almost disappear completely.

But the US have different mortgage rules.

What they have, too, is some quite punitive taxes for amateur BTL landlords, to discourage individuals from buying property and renting it out as an investment and being absentee landlords, which was a big problem even in colonial times there. It's not a good idea to have a lot of individual landlords. So a huge portion of rental properties there are owned by businesses and especially large corporations and conglomerates. As a result, the getting turfed out of your flat or terrace house after 4 months because the LL needs it back or wants to sell it is almost unheard of, a business is much more able to weather market fluctuations in the market.

The leases are usually longer, too, a year is standard and you will usually pay more for a shorter lease. Again, none of this 'I can still kick you out with two months notice' bollocks or the LL leaving their furniture in the property or doing inspections or not allowing you to hang a picture on the wall. It's yours and you're left to it, although of course you pay big time if you damage the property. If you want to stay you simply agree to sign a new lease, usually with a rent hike. As your property is owned by a big corporation, the maintenance is usually run by an equally large property management company so everything is standardised - got a leak? Get onto the site or tweet about it and it will get fixed. You're usually dealing with a business and not Sharon whose renting out Ma's flat in Hull but lives in Lanzarote and can't be arsed to fix the boiler.