To say about bloody time? No DSS landlords breaking the law.

[Whatisthisfuckery]

A judge has ruled that landlords and letting agents refusing to let to people on housing benefit is unlawful.

It’s about bloody time it was made clear that it is not acceptable to discriminate against people who are on benefits. Housing is not just a privilege for those who are employed and able to work.

Obviously this clarification in the court will not solve the housing crisis, for people on low incomes especially, and much more needs to be done to make sure people have access to benefits without lengthy waits that then create rent arrears etc, but it’s a step in the wright direction.

www.bbc.com/news/education-53391516

Does this mean that mortgage providers will be forced to change their rules? Afaik a lot of buy to let mortgages have that as a stipulation.

Yeah, it's the lending banks that have this as a stipulation, not the landlords themselves.

My mother who is now living in an annex on my house is renting her house out to a DSS tenant with 6 children. We didn't judge DSS, as long as the rent is paid we don't mind who lives there

@lockdownparty

Does this mean that mortgage providers will be forced to change their rules? Afaik a lot of buy to let mortgages have that as a stipulation.

Apparently they’ve already had to remove those conditions from BTL mortgages. Unfortunately it won’t stop landlords from finding some other spurious reason to reject those people as tenants.

I hope it does mean that they'll have to change the stipulation given that it is now classed as discrimination. If it remains it would be the legal equivalent of buy to let mortgage providers saying "you cannot let to anyone in receipt of DLA/PIP" or "you cannot let to anyone who is not white" or "you are only allowed to let to men".

So a landlord can not choose who they wish to do business with? Who they entrust their expensive assets in the care of?

All that will happen is that more people will be sifted out at credit check stage, as these requirements become more strict.

We have landlord insurance with a huge national provider and this is a stipulation of theirs.
It isn't as easy as saying landlords are at fault.
We rent our home out while overseas and the rent wouldn't be covered by HB so it isn't an issue for us personally but it is a screening question the insurance company asked us.

Landlords will still be able to choose who they do business with provided that their choice is not discriminatory.

We have landlord insurance with a huge national provider and this is a stipulation of theirs.

I'd imagine insurance companies will have to chance their terms also.

*change

I am also inclined to think that it will just mean more people are screened out at the credit check point rather than directly upfront.

Perhaps that will be the next step in removing barriers to people obtaining housing and the next time a ruling is handed down it's related to credit checks being used to discriminate.

Landlords will just adapt more stringent credit checks. Not all people on benefits will be bad tenants, but there is a theory that if you are on benefits, you are lazy, if you are lazy, you may not keep a property to a good standard. Again NOT everyone on benefits but this will be the view of Tory voters who own the buy to let’s, whether they admit it or not.

Unfortunately, it will not stop those on benefits being discriminated against as they will probably tighten the credit checks or require a guarantor etc.
I do think the older system of the benefit going straight to the landlord with no option of changing to the recipient would be better to reduce the chance of defaulting though.

I think it may just be that the government isn't reliable enough in paying to make some landlords, banks and insurance companies happy to take the risk.

I'm delighted. When I worked in homelessness/homeless prevention, being on benefits was the single biggest obstacle to people getting homes.

However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some landlords got round it by raising rents to a level that's unaffordable for people on benefits.

I've been saying for years that this practice discriminates against people with disabilities and, indirectly, women, as households headed by a single parent are more likely to be on benefits than a 2-adult household and 90% of single parents are women. I'm delighted that the judge agrees with me.

My insurance doesn’t allow for Housing Benefit

If they apply once they have moved in that’s fine

Way around it is to rely on work references

It isn't just about 'Tory but to let landlords' ( rather a sweepstake of assumptions there).
The banks and insurance companies are driven by risk analysis rather than political ideas.
People receiving these benefits have been assessed as being at higher risk of non payment and other cost related issues.

I’ve no doubt the cards will be shuffled and restacked against benefit claimants and those on low incomes.

What I have never been able to understand is, in my case I’m on benefits due to disability so my income is steady. If I could pass a credit check on the same income if I was employed then why would my steady income be unacceptable?

It’s about time really

This should never have been a thing. If landlords were that bothered, they could have requested the housing benefit went straight to them

And there is absolutely no way I would not have full insurance it covers many things not just non payment of rent

Should the property become unliveable (for example a flood) the landlord is responsible for making sure the tenant has a roof over their head (rightly so)

It's not about damaging the property, it's about getting paid properly.

You hear so much stuff about people not receiving their UC because they got paid a day earlier than usual because their pay day falls on the weekend etc. It's no wonder the landlords don't want to be relying on this crap a system to pay!

Also if the government invested more into social housing and housing associations, then those in receipt of benefits wouldn't be left to fend for themselves on the private market.

The only benefits that were accepted by my insurance company were permanent disability benefits that did not directly make up the payment for the rent.

( so were just part of general income)

I think it's great - I'm neither tenant nor LL but did rent for years. Very good program about this on R4 this morning - and apparently the Lenders and Insurance companies will no longer be able to have these stipulations either.

What I have never been able to understand is, in my case I’m on benefits due to disability so my income is steady.

No, your income is not steady. It may have been up until this point but it is in danger of being stopped for any number of reasons.

I don’t agree with this change at all; landlords should be able to choose who they do and don’t want to let their house to.

A small step in the right direction but still lots to be done to make housing affordable and possible for all. I would also like to see some form of rent controls/ caps.