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 :(

Plabom I agree entirely.

The argument that "it's their property they don't have to uphold any moral duty" is not any different to saying a shop shouldn't have to serve a black man because it's their shop, or a hotel owner shouldn't have to let a room to a gay couple because it's their hotel.

If you conduct business, you have a duty to be fair to the general public.

I had three lot of tenants. The first tenant paid on time and were OK but lived in filth and left the property in a state of disrepair as a result. The second were crooks. The current ones are fantastic.

I really admire your sense of social duty

Thank you.

Realistically, if you haven't got the mental strength and financial flexibility to deal with the downs as well as the ups, then being a landlord isn't for you.

Swing, did you find and check your tenants yourself or did you go through an agent, out of interest?

@Seline, your comparing making sound business decision with being racist is insulting. The two are not comparable at all. You can't assume that a black person is more at risk to a business because of the colour of their skin. You can assume that someone relying on benefits is more financial vulnerable and therefore likely to find themselves in difficulty to pay.

A hotel is legally entitled to refuse someone if they don't pay for their stay in advance or have a credit card.

I went through an agent each time but also met the tenants on all three occasions.

So perhaps if landlords had more protection, and others were prepared to cover the risks through insurance, there’d be less reluctance. If you could evict a tenant who destroyed property or didn’t pay rent easily and vey quickly, if the LA insured LLs against damage...or perhaps we make it law that for the next 10 years, the only housing to be built should be social housing.

Realistically, if you haven't got the mental strength and financial flexibility to deal with the downs as well as the ups, then being a landlord isn't for you
I'm prepared to deal with them but will do everything to limit the likelihood. I don't feel obliged to make myself suffer when I can avoid the risk.

No offense but when you go through hell as a result of a bad tenant, you might feel very differently.

@Seline, your comparing making sound business decision with being racist is insulting. The two are not comparable at all. You can't assume that a black person is more at risk to a business because of the colour of their skin. You can assume that someone relying on benefits is more financial vulnerable and therefore likely to find themselves in difficulty to pay.

People of colour are statistically more likely to be poorer than white people. So, what's the difference?

@Seline @Plabom this is where you are getting confused. LLs have NO moral duty or obligation to you. Nor SHOULD they be expected to.

Rule #1 - never trust an agent to find your tenants. The more tenants you go through, the better for them. More £ for them, and they don't give two shits if you have trouble with them.

Vet them yourself, it's so easy. Most LAs are a rip off and are self-invested. You get a much better idea of someone when you interact and take an interest in their circumstances. Which is all I'm saying - morally I think it's right to consider everyone. Doesn't mean you have to rent to anyone- just that you are open to considering.

You can't discriminate over one aspect of their circumstances, it's better to have a full picture, surely?

If someone goes into a shop and helps themselves to stuff and leaves without paying, they are arrested and charged. Same as trashing the shop. It doesn’t take months for the shop to deal with their removal, and they’ve carry insurance to cover damage. I’m also confused by landlords being held to higher standards than everyone else.
People with spare rooms could take in homeless?

@PinkGin24

With many years' of experience as a private landlord of family homes and house shares behind my opinion, I believe LLs do have a moral obligation to consider and be aware of discriminating in any shape or form.

Most councils have a list of landlords and/or agencies that will rent or may rent to DSS which you can ask for or is published on their website.

I don't think the issue is private landlords.
I think the issue is the colossal underfunding, selling off and lack of building of council homes by consecutive governments (not just the tories ) which has left us with not enough of the right type of housing.
Also the lack of protections for tenants and the dreadful UC system.

Of course private landlords aren't coming off smelling of roses, but it's the whole system that stinks

Blame the system, not the individuals who like every bloody body else are just trying to do their best for themselves and their families.

I will add, I have had some really crappy renting situations and been on DSS in its various forms, but honestly I do not blame landlords I blame the system.

this is where you are getting confused. LLs have NO moral duty or obligation to you. Nor SHOULD they be expected to

Yes they should. If your business is people's lives, you have an obligation.

'Believe' they have a moral obligation all you want... but the point is they don't.

Also, being a benefits recipient isn't a protected characteristic, so it isn't discrimination.

It is NO different to insurance, charging higher premiums for those within certain demographics or riskier areas. You could always go down the route of charging massive deposits or higher rent to DSS tenants, but you probably wouldn't like that either

LLs should not havw to take on statistically riskier renters. And whether you like it or not rhat is what DSS tennants are - STATISTICALLY.

I'm coming to this mega late but have a story that relates

But isn't it more secure in a way as they are getting paid by the local council?

I used to live in a block of five flats. 3 were lived in by the owners, ours was privately rented, the other rental was via the council. The landlords were very nice people and gave a lot of 2nd chances.
The chap that lived in there had a fair share of issues. He was drunk every day, use to lock himself out regularly, played very loud music and was a nuisance to be honest. But we all did our bit to help him (took it in turns letting him back in, calling him locksmiths, etc).
Then he started getting involved with some risky people, police were round a LOT, everyone started complaining to the landlords. We actually had to text friends/family to say that if they were coming round they had to tell us first because otherwise we would not answer the door, just in case it was somebody else.
They tried to evict him but the council blocked the eviction for some reason (I don't know the ins and outs but I think he was marked as vulnerable). Then they dropped it. The same stuff happened later so they tried to evict him again and, months later, it happened, but not before he completely destroyed their flat.
So they had to redo the whole place. It's sad because tenants like this are few and far between, but the 10 people living in that block all ended up saying "I will never rent to anyone through the council" because of living near that guy, let alone being his actual landlord.

That being said, I know a couple of others that rent through DSS, but they were vetted by landlords and have to have guarantors.

People like Pink have no rights working in a field like housing.

My point is being missed entirely.

This isn't about LLs having to rent to anyone. My point is LLs shouldn't discount an entire category of applicants without fair due diligence.

Everyone's circumstances are unique.

There's a difference between a 'DSS' tenant who relies 100% on benefits and has a CCJ and ASBO and a 'DSS' tenant who works hard but is on a zero-hours contract whose partner is disabled and has housing benefit top-up.

By refusing all DSS, the second example is unfairly dismissed from applying.

Whether it's a protected characteristic or not doesn't make it not discrimination - was racism not discrimination before the laws against it came into action?

Every LL on here preaching about having had bad tenants in the past so now won't accept DSS - for every story you have, each tenant will have had multiple bad LLs.

You can refuse to take any more DSS because of 1 or 2 bad stories, which mean decent people are made homeless, but tenants will never have a choice about crap LLs.

Cripplingly high rent (that LLs on here have admitted pay for their mortgage, fees and then leave them the same amount again as profit), houses in shoddy repair, damp leaving children ill, broken heating, letting themselves in to property without notice and acting like they still live there, selling the property as soon as you get comfy, lying about damage when the tenant leaves and keeping deposits, etc etc, I could go on all night. And that's all that I've personally experienced. Yet here I am still in rentals as I have no other choice.

You may own the building but that is your tenants HOME. Have a heart

People of colour are statistically more likely to be poorer than white people. So, what's the difference?
The difference is that the colour of their skin is who they are and always will be. Being on ne it is not a life long status, well sadly it seems to be considered so by some, but in reality isn't. I wouldn't let to someone on benefits.ut if they get a decently paid job would, hence not making it personal to who they are, only their ability to pay at that point in time.

My point is LLs shouldn't discount an entire category of applicants without fair due diligence
So what do you base your judgement on? The promesses prospective tenants make ? The reference of a previous landlord give, which could be a complete lie just so they get rid of them? I go through an agency as an advertising tool. I ask th the questions I want to ask and ultimately make my own choice. Last time within a day of the property being available, I had three prospective tenants. The two I turned down might have been great tenants, but so we're the ones I picked. They just had a bit more to offer.

e. Being on ne it is not a life long status, well sadly it seems to be considered so by some, but in reality isn't. I wouldn't let to someone onbenefits.utif they get a decently paid job would, hence not making it personal to who they are, only their ability to pay at that point in time.
Lots of people on benefits have a job already, or are disabled, which can make it permanent. They have the ability to pay, you just don't like where the money is paid from

So what do you base your judgement on?

A case by case basis. No ridiculous blanket rules.

You may own the building but that is your tenants HOME. Have a heart
But whoever is turned down will feel hard done by anyway, so what difference does it make? We can't house everyone looking for a roof over our heads but we provide for one family who needs it.