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 :(

@swingofthings No but it's the attitude of the LLs on here "it's a business, I can turn down who I want, you can't put pictures up, I won't accept anybody in receipt of any benefits" and everything else that's been said on here that just really hurts, for the people on here who rent and who are at your complete mercy

A case by case basis. No ridiculous blanket rules
What different does it make? If you have three possible families, all seem to have the ability to pay, all good references, who will you pick? Ultimately you'll have a criteria, be it your gut feeling that will mean that you'll pick one and discriminate against the two others based on that criteria.

As a student, DD needed a guarantor, and 2 months rent as deposit. If she was a bad tenant, the LL could have her out in a couple of months.
Banks and building societies could offer the same provision to those on benefits to secure a let. If their credit history was good, the risk would be minimal.

everything else that's been said on here that just really hurts, for the people on here who rent and who are at your complete mercy
Yep, but you know, I feel the same when I apply for jobs that I know I definitely could do well, but I don't get even an interview because I don't have one qualification that is deemed an essential requirement even though I've excelled at that role without it. It hurts that I'm at the mercy of that recruiter and not given a chance to prove myself.

It's life. If I want to go for that job, I aspire to get the qualification. Otherwise I accept I'll have to settle for other jobs. It really is no different.

swing

It makes a difference because an entire group isn't excluded. And in reality you won't have three completely equal tenants, so the hypothetical is a bit silly.

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

If only that were the case. I honestly do not understand why on earth HB is ever paid to the tenant instead of directly to the landlord. It would solve SO many problems. It would offer greater security to tenants. Far fewer people would end up being evicted due to rent areas when they get in a pickle with money. Fewer landlords would get ripped off and more would have the confidence to let to people in receipt of benefits.

@seline, if you go by your gut feeling, then all those who you don't get a good feeling about get excluded, even though they might be excellent prospective tenants. Everyone applies criteria in selection. You just think that by reviewing everyone's application, it means that ultimately you are giving everyone an equal chance. You would only do that if you picked randomly who to let your property too from all those who said they liked the place.

A case by case basis. No ridiculous blanket rules.

That's a total waste of time, because if the LL doesn't want people on benefits, or those with young children, or those with pets, or those who work from home, then they'll decline them anyway. So it makes more sense just to know what the LL doesn't want than waste your time applying when they'll reject you, anyway, and you usually have to pay for a credit check, so I'd rather not be out of pocket if I know the LL doesn't want me anyway.

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

Sadly, a heart doesn't pay the bills. LL's have bills to pay, too.

@swingofthings You keep talking about applying, or being turned down. Don't you see the point of this post was that you can't even apply for a house if you're on DSS? Landlords put the blanket "No DSS" ban and then people can't even apply to them so the landlord can never hear their case if they are decent people, and there is no turning down to be had. That is what i think needs to change. If the playing field is level and all applications can be put in then fair enough, but saying you just flat turn down all DSS is as unfair as "no blacks, no Irish" was in the past.

Your analogy of the job as well shows that you don't get the brevity of the situation. We're not talking about a chance to prove oneself in a job, we're talking about a family trying to put a roof over their children's heads before they end up homeless. A family that you won't even accept an application on because their income is so small it requires top up benefits

swing but everyone's perception is different so one group won't be excluded. Plus no one is saying don't review your tenants, just that instead of saying no benefits it might be fairer to actually look at circumstances.

I honestly do not understand why on earth HB is ever paid to the tenant instead of directly to the landlord

They thought they were dealing with grown ups?

Alternatively didn’t they cap each type of situation - so a large family get paid X and the landlord wants Y the tenant can still occupy the property and pay the difference? Rather than be limited to what the councils will pay

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

And it isn't anymore for a lot of people because of the way UC is paid out. Everyone's PIP can be called in for review. Peoples' money can be stopped and/or their award changed and that means the council cannot pay it to the LL.

I have found that although landlords often state "no DSS" some are open to individual circumstances so it's not always a case of them not renting to anyone with DSS entirely
Others are incredibly apologetic but cannot rent to DSS even if they wanted to- eg. Due to the terms or mortgage or insurance.
I do think there is more "Case by case" going on behind the scenes

@ilmmaiss, so would it make a difference if Landlords said DSS accepted, but ultimately those on benefits never got selected because the property is offered to someone not on benefit?

They are properties available for people claiming benefits, but they are not the most desirable ones.

@aethelgifu but if you took on one of the many decent people who have to claim a few benefits you would be getting your money and giving a family a home. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I've rented for nearly 20 years now and 5 of those were while I had to claim HB. I've never been so much as a day late or a penny short on my rent. We're not all house trashing scumbags and my family owe a debt to the decent LLs with a heart who took us on when we were struggling. I'm sorry there don't seem to be many on here

Alternatively didn’t they cap each type of situation - so a large family get paid X and the landlord wants Y the tenant can still occupy the property and pay the difference? Rather than be limited to what the councils will pay

Yes of course, but at least if the HB goes directly to the LL then all he has to do it collect the balance from the tenant so if arrears do occur they are less serious and the LL is less likely to lose patience and serve the tenant notice.

HB is paid directly to the tenant as it is there responsibility to pay the rent, there responsibility to take in evidence of bank statements & pay slips etc when requested and also there responsibility to tell the council of any changes in there circumstances.

Not everyone has that ability to be responsible, but most do and should have the responsibility as they are not incapable so why treat them as if they are.

I do think there is more "Case by case" going on behind the scenes
And of course there are many families who might not be claiming when they first rent but end up doing so. That was the case for the second family who rented my property and I would have had no issue with them staying if they'd continued to pay rent and looked after the property. Sadly they stopped paying despite getting HB and trashed the place.

KA if HB is suspended then the tenant can continue to pay their amount until HB is reinstated - the landlord doesn’t have to have direct payments for that to happen

I'm sorry there don't seem to be many on here
Or some were until they had enough of being treated like commodities. How many chances do you give before you decide that going for the least risky offer is protecting yourself?

Why would a LL waste their 'hearing cases' if they know they do not want DSS tennats (or that rheir mortagage won't allow it)!

What do you NOT get about this, they aren't a charity, they aren't a public service, they have NO moral obligation to house DSS tenants.

Excluding DSS tenants is NO different to excluding smokers, pet owners, children.

As an ex housing worker, I and many colleagues thought RTB would be withdrawn after Labour came into power in 1997. But no. Scotland and Wales have stopped it, why not England?

Because Blair thought he would alienate the middle-class and aspirational working class swing voters.

What Labour did was to cap the amount of the discount. While the maximum of £77k is a lot in many parts of the country, in the south-east it would still require a big mortgage to be able to buy a family house under RTB, unless you had significant capital.

A 3-bed house in my part of Sussex would be worth around £300-350k, so far less than 70% of the value. The tenant would need to be able to raise £280k to be able to exercise RTB. The rate of RTB purchases has plummeted as a result (not that that's necessarily a bad thing).

but if you took on one of the many decent people who have to claim a few benefits you would be getting your money and giving a family a home.

But the fact is that they are more of a risk, because they are reliant upon an unreliable source for part of the rent, so of course you won't find many LL's who will go for that if they have the choice of someone who is not.

What do you not get about businesses having to comply with treating members of the public fairly?

It's people like Pink who've pushed me further and further to the left over the years.

Not everyone has that ability to be responsible, but most do and should have the responsibility as they are not incapable so why treat them as if they are.

Well given the number of tenants with serious rent arrears, if there are capable of budgeting and being responsible then we have to assume that they are just unwilling. They'd rather spend the government's money on something else, instead of prioritising what it was meant for - keeping a roof over their head.

Regardless of whether the tenant is capable, or well intentioned, or good at budgeting or not, there shouldn't be the opportunity to divert the money for rent towards other things. The most important thing should be that people have continuity and security in their housing and than can only happen when the rent gets paid regularly and on time. We can't always control what happens -unexpected expenses, periods of illness, job loss, unexpected pregnancy or whatever, but at least if the rent (or at least the vast bulk of it) is paid no matter what, you won't have insult added to injury by being evicted as well.