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

Oh great, now people on DSS who already struggle to rent houses can waste time applying for properties that they will never get.

Just because LLs aren't legally allowed to discriminate doesn't mean that they won't.

If the housing benefit cap in an area is X and a fair market rent that people are willing to pay is X + 50% how does that work?

Seems unfair on both sides, a situation that is set up to fail.

The problem with forcing LL to allow pets is that is a disincentive to upgrade things like furniture and carpets. It would drive down the standards for all renters.

@lyralalala I think Scotland has much better protection for tenants. You have more secure tenancies without no-fault evictions too, I think?
Also Scotland has ended right to buy. It's a shame if there's any cutbacks to the scheme. I hope the funding can continue. I just wish England had similar.

[quote plantlife]@lyralalala I think Scotland has much better protection for tenants. You have more secure tenancies without no-fault evictions too, I think?
Also Scotland has ended right to buy. It's a shame if there's any cutbacks to the scheme. I hope the funding can continue. I just wish England had similar.[/quote]
I don't know about the tenancies as I'm in England. I only know about the registration because it was discussed when the council here set up the voluntary scheme. It was a bit modelled on the Scottish scheme. It's a pity isn't not continuing as a combination of that and a bundle of new housing association homes made a few of the really rubbish local landlords sell up.

That’s good news. It isn’t just people who aren’t working that are on benefits it’s those working full time who have a low wage and need a top up to be able to manage. Min wage doesn’t cover a lot of private rents plus the other bills but working people are still discriminated against for not being high earners.

They'll just find another way to discriminate. Another way round it.

My landlord was selling my house and I couldn't find any private let willing to take us, even with a guarantor and an unblemished record for paying rent on time for 16 years.

Reason = benefits.

All these landlords saying UC is terrible, unreliable I won't rent to them etc - why not help by campaigning for reform to it then??!! People on UC are your fellow human beings!!

It doesn't help though that people get to live in their council houses when they no longer need them or their circumstances nor. A couple whose kids have left home shouldn't still be able to rent a three bedroom house of the council they should have to move to a smaller property and free up the house for others to use. It's a state owned asset and people are renting at a massive discount - no idea why this is not dealt with

As much as I agree with this, mortgage providers need to now let landlords let to them!

It's good news but means nothing

Urgh, pressed send. Why can't we bloody edit!
It means nothing because landlords will still discriminate and the LHA will still be too low for the vast majority of areas so people on low incomes and benefits are still fucked.

We need to go much much further in this country.
At a minimum we need a sensible and strictly enforced rent cap but actually I'd favour an absolute ban on second home ownership/BTL. All rented housing should be social housing and managed as such.
Standard and affordable rent charges and with full housing benefit paid, open and non-discriminatory rental practices.

Homes are for living in and you should not be able to make a profit and build your pension on the housing needs of others. It's abhorrent.

@whereorwhere

It doesn't help though that people get to live in their council houses when they no longer need them or their circumstances nor. A couple whose kids have left home shouldn't still be able to rent a three bedroom house of the council they should have to move to a smaller property and free up the house for others to use. It's a state owned asset and people are renting at a massive discount - no idea why this is not dealt with

Presumably primarily because there aren’t a glut of empty one and two bedroom houses available.

Yeah no one is an accidental landlord. They might choose to rent their spare house out as the least bad option but it's never a case of "ooh, I've just found a house in my rucksack and somehow I've fallen on top of the people in it and charged them £1000 a month, how did that happen?

What a load of bollocks. My dad ended up in a nursing home, I had power of attorney and I rented out his home to pay for the nursing home fees. But yeah- lucky bloody me that my dad got severe dementia. I certainly planned that well didn’t I? 🙄
Then when he died the tenants remained there because their lease hadn’t yet run out so yes, I did become an accidental landlord. Perhaps you would have preferred me to instantly evict them when he died?

Frankly the worst thing for acceptance of benefits was the change away from direct pay to landlords.If landlords still got the housing benefit paid directly to them to cover/contribute to rent then more would see it as viable.

I was a single parent, working full time, and so obviously didn’t qualify for social housing. I had to rent privately as although I owned with ex, I didn’t have enough equity to put down a deposit to then get enough of a mortgage to buy. I’m now married and after years of renting, got on the property ladder again last year. But where would people like me have gone if there were no private landlords? If there were no landlords, increased housing stock does not mean that people who couldn’t afford to buy, suddenly could buy these houses - banks are very cautious and these days you have to have a near perfect credit file to have a mortgage application accepted. The real issues here are banks not being flexible enough with their lending, and the council not having enough properties, which would not necessarily change if there were no buy to let’s. I would have been homeless had I not been able to rent privately, as would thousands more people.

@Charleyhorses

Frankly the worst thing for acceptance of benefits was the change away from direct pay to landlords.If landlords still got the housing benefit paid directly to them to cover/contribute to rent then more would see it as viable.

Yep, another of Brown/Blair's mistakes that continue to blight us.

My sister pays less than a 3rd I do on rent for her mortgage

There's more to owning a house than the mortgage. The house needs regular repairs, maintenance and replacement. Renters don't have to find money for new kitchens, bathrooms, boilers, nor a new roof. They don't have to pay for redecorating, gutter repairs, new carpets, etc. People who rent don't see that kind of thing nor how expensive it can be. That's just normal usage and deterioration over time even with careful occupants.

We've lived in our house for 23 years. The amount we've spent on repairs/replacements and maintenance easily adds up to more than it cost us to buy. That's without extensions, so basically it's like for like as we bought it, but just updated. New pvc doors & windows, new roof, fully recarpeted/decorated, new boiler, a few replacement radiators, replaced leaky porches, extra electric sockets installed, replacement like for like kitchen & bathrooms. House was built 1979 so not an old wreck by ant means. Perfectly "move in-able" when we bought it, but everything deteriorates over time and most things cost more than people think to replace/repair. As I say, renters don't see that.

I think most tenants are more than aware of the maintenance needs of houses, lots will spend a huge amount of time living in poorly maintained properties and begging for repairs to be done.

WitchesGlove our mortgage provider allowed us to rent our house out when we needed to move for work, without putting us on a BTL mortgage. They did hike up the base rate though. And we're certainly not rich.

In London, certain leases in large blocks specify no DSS, no Students and no pets. Especially in grade 2 listed buildings. As far as I remember it keeps insurance costs lower (not just landlord insurance, but buildings insurance too). It isn’t as simple as landlords discriminating. Many professional tenants in blocks do not want to rent next to students and people on benefits. They want to be with other young professionals, some retired elderly people. In fact, often prospective tenants ask exactly these questions. Sadly the prejudice is entrenched in a capitalist society across many different strata and quite frankly local councils need to do much more to help house people who are struggling and it is such a shame so much affordable housing has been sold off. I hope we see more professional companies with good housing stock renting to people on benefits/top up benefits who know the system and are comfortable with it. I think asking some small landlord with one or 2 properties for whom this is a retirement fund to take on a higher risk/higher insurance costs is unfair.

Well this is depressing, though predictable that landlords still stereotype people on benefits as untrustworthy scroungers who like to smash things.

Yes it costs more than a mortgage payment to rent places out, but you aren't constantly replacing the roof/windows/gutters/boilers/kitchens/bathrooms/etc. The state of rental houses when my friend was looking at them was appalling, most landlords clearly do not spend much money on maintenance in this area at least.

A lot of leasehold properties have covenants restricting who the leaseholders can let to - if I ever wanted to let my flat out I wouldn't be able to have a tenant on benefits without risking forfeiture.

All this change will do is waste time: people will apply but be weeded out during reference and credit checks.

I think the best way is to create sink estates; build places on the edge of town that are solely let to the unemployed and people on other benefits. This would free up the nicer parts of town for people who work to earn a living. A lot of the neighbour problems people have are created by the mixture of groups on streets, decent homeowners living next door to someone who has never had a proper job and supplements their income dealing crack for example. Council estates and tower blocks would have the positive effect of putting all the rotten eggs in one basket, so to speak, whilst enabling those who won't/can't support themselves to have a decent roof above their head.

LinemanForTheCounty. My solicitor told me that the average time it takes to evict a non paying tenant is one year from the first missed payment to the date of eviction. In his 30 years of experience he has never known a non paying tenant to just quietly leave once given notice. Why would they? They're surely going to ride that free housing train right to the last stop. I suspect my tenant thinks the council will home him once he's homeless, he's in for a big shock - the reason the law is on the tenant's side in terms of evictions is because local councils would prefer it remain a problem for private LLs, rather than them.

But what about the poor second home owners? Won’t someone PLEASE think of the poor second home owners?!!

Every time I rent my house out I have a few people who want to live there.
The last time there were 4 lots, 3 couples and a single lady with a son.
The son had special needs and had got a place at the local high school.

My first thought was actually that it would mean the lady & son would stay a few years, couples tend to move often.
The estate agent had done the viewing & described each party, she pushed one couple saying they were really nice / loved the house etc etc
When describing the lady & son she said “I feel sorry for her because no one will rent to her, she is on benefits. I’ve seen people take a risk before though and it always comes back to bite them, I’d go with bla bla couple”

What person would go against that kind of advice?!