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

@contrmary

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.

Yes, lump the women who have left abusive marriages with young children in with paedophiles and drug dealers. That's definitely what an evolved society would do. Let's bar them from school places too, clearly no hope for them, and hospitals as they don't pay enough taxes and we don't want to prolong their lives as we would have to pay for that.

Are you not ashamed at what you have written? You are aware that most people on benefits work?

*Housing is an essential so no landlords absolutely should not be able to pick and choose who they do business with" The problem is that no government will do all that is needed to make the system fair. So when SHELTER demand x, y and z for renters everyine shoudl stop and think. None of the changes that they have loobied for and own will come without a cost to landlord and renter alike.

Tax changes - your essential housing is taxed to the hilt now, because of the changes. With all the additinal costs that renters do not bear directly and seem never to consider, there is little to recmmedn a landlord keeping his houses above the necessary standard

Ft for Human Habitation Act - sounded good. But is a tota pig's ear. And is wide open for tenants to rip off a landlord simply by not reporting an issue as it occurs. And that's not even going into the details of how/if this information was/was not disseminated

Landlords have no rights beyond a tenant paying agreed rent in a timely way and living cleanly and decently. not even that as 'cleanly' is a matter of opinion! As is decently. And the burden of decently being shifted to landlords is growing ever nearer!

At some point in the not too distant future normal decent renters will stop and realise that SHELTER has done them a great injustice. Shit tenants will have all the protection in the world, but every day, normal renters will be paying for it, as will their landlords.

There is so much that could be done to make renting a far more equitable and pleasant experienece for all. Why the government cannot see that and bow to the weird stats and reasoning of a lobby group I have no idea!

How about change the rules so when you have a bad tenant it’s easier to get rid of them instead?

@Lalaok

How about change the rules so when you have a bad tenant it’s easier to get rid of them instead?

That would be ideal, especially as the 'year to evict' makes LLs risk averse. However, the housing department at your local council doesn't want problem tenants either, whether they're anti social or don't pay rent, so it's far easier to leave them with the private LL for as long as possible.

They won’t change the rules to get bad tenants out quicker because of the lobbies protesting tenants rights from eviction.

The fact that a tenant is not allowed to leave until an eviction notice has been served is bad for both tenant and LL.

A couple of years ago I was served sec 21 by my LL because he was selling up. I went to the council and they told me if I couldn’t find alternative provision I had to stay put otherwise I would be intentionally making myself homeless. Thankfully I was able to find a new place to live, not a very nice one, which didn’t take too long. I informed my LL that I would need an extra month after the end date of the sec 21 because I couldn’t find anywhere to occupy before that date. He agreed to, I continued paying rent as usual, the flat was immaculate and I got all my deposit back and all was well.

If I hadn’t managed to find a flat, it’s very difficult to find even poor quality housing where I used to live if you’re on benefits, I would have had to wait to be evicted, which would have put a blemish on my otherwise unblemished rental record. I would have had an eviction against my name when I had done nothing to deserve it and there’s nothing I could have done about it other than take my son to live under a bridge, and my otherwise decent LL who was happy to let to an HB tenant would have had to spend money going to court to get a possession order, which would have turned him against DSS tenants, even though his DSS tenant was a good one who always paid rent and would have continued to pay rent even when waiting for the bailiffs to come.

The entire system does nobody any favours, but it’s the tenants who end up without a home at the end of it, it’s incredibly unlikely indeed to be you, or the council or the people who implement the system, and yes I understand the prospect of losing your investment property is unfair, as unlikely as it is, but realisticly you won’t be left on the streets, and as LLs on here keep pointing out, renting out property is a business, and there’s no such thing as a risk free business. You might think as a LL that things are stacked against you, but it’s not you facing the very realistic prospect of at best being stuck in a B&B with a child, miles away from your support network amongst god knows who. When you’re moaning how unfair it is that you might have to take more risk than you’d like, imagine the risk tenants on benefits are facing. If you keep paying your mortgage it’s vanishingly unlikely that you will be turfed out of your home for no reason whatsoever, but it is likely to happen to us, and it does, quite regularly, it happened to me twice in 4 years.

the fact that an applicant is a benefit claimant is nowhere near the whole story. Nobody would expect you to want to rent to a chancer who has a dodgy track record who moves around a lot, but you can get references for that. An applicant who has a good record, who has kids who need a secure home and provides a track record of good references should not be tarred with the scrounging waster who spends all their money on booze or fags brush, and neither should we be shoved into the ghetto like some other PP has suggested, thanks for that PP.

And to the PP that disagreed that my disability benefits are not a steady income, Well yes they are, or they’re as assured a steady income as you could possibly hope to see. I have a disability that will never go away and will never have a cure, unless you can find a cure for having had your eyes removed that is, so unless the government decide that I no longer have the right to live and put me out with the bole to beg, which is possible I guess, I have a steady income, and don’t forget, you can lose a job in a heartbeat, and it’s not exactly a favourable job market out there at the moment.

@LinemanForTheCounty

Which was the least bad option and I'm honestly not judging you for it. But it wasn't an accident. You weighed up the situation and made a decision. That doesn't make you a capitalist baby eating bastard, but it wasn't accidental either.

And actually on a policy level this is a problem - not your responsibility but a problem nonetheless - because this ad hoc provision of housing by people who have no impetus, motivation or drive to ensure quality or consistency of rental stock or security for their tenants - entirely understandably, as they are looking to their own interests - is no way to organise housing provision that is 33% rentier.

I would either have been bankrupt or rented it out, so it wasn’t a choice!

I was a pretty good landlord. I kept the house nicer than more. Charged lower rent. Always did repairs immediately and did stuff that I didn’t have to, some of it due to tenants not doing their bit (e.g. tonnes of problems with condensation because tenant would never ever open an window). I just did it, I was renting myself.

However like many ‘small time’ landlords, I had the most restrictive mortgage, highest interest rate, and it stipulated no DSS and so did my insurance. The tenant split up from her BF and went onto benefits. She had a kid. I let her stay but it was a bit of a risk, well a massive one actually, if I needed to claim on insurance I’d have been fucked!

I’m not loaded. In fact I couldn’t get a mortgage anymore as I lost my job, had to look after an elderly relative, and my DS, took a part time job, no access to benefits (rightly so as my home was being rented), living myself in a smaller rental than my tenant on DSS, no savings, huge mortgage, had to take out credit card debts which are in the 1000s even now to pay for repairs on the house.

I’m not saying woe is me, as at the end of the day I’ve got one mortgaged home that I couldn’t live in, as it was in a different part of the country to relative that I was caring for. Many people don’t ever get a mortgage. At one point I was in negative equity. However now it’s got a small amount of equity which when I stop caring duties and get a full time job, I can out towards a flat.

However what I am saying is that for someone like me whose insurance and mortgage stipulated no DSS, but we’ve done it anyway, I am massively vulnerable. Most people like me would have kicked the woman out and fair enough, if the house flooded they would then not be able to make an insurance claim. However it’s not the right thing to do - but government needs to make it OK for someone like me to do this. Most properties taking DSS privately are run by businesses which do not have nice properties and may have unscrupulous practices.

We live in a rented house and in turn rent our house out. But I'm not a accidental landlord. It was a btl because we have lived in this rented house for 20 years.

My mortgage says tenants have to be working not me. My tenants have rented from us for 12 years and once they go I'm selling it.

It's purely a business asset that over the years I have less and less control over. If I lost this rented house I couldn't get my asset back and my own 4 kids would be homeless. Renting gets closer and closer to being a government asset every year. If labour had their way at the last election I would have effectively lost it.

I have one btl rented at 75% market rate. But it's really a multiple property landlords area now.

The next step is the right to buy and end of section 21's. Private landlords are slowly moving to social landlords. I'm not saying that's wrong or a bad thing. But it is extremely risking. You would be I sane to enter the btl market now.

Also I would never keep my house empty BUT it has gone up by 100k in seven years. I could make money hassle free if it was empty ( not that I would) but will we see more of that if rules change again so tenants can buy private house below market value? Would that saturate the rental market with 20 somethings who have that time to wait?

I guess what we need is more socail flats on every new estate

Actually it was last year I was served with sec 21. I’ve moved north this year because the flat I ended up in was an absolute shithole, with a LL who wanted to keep rraising the already market rent by exorbitant amounts while not keeping it in a decent condition. I’ve had to move around so much that it all blurs together. Funnily enough the LL of my old flat has now been forced to do the flat up because he’s struggling to re-let,and he’s put it on at the rent I was paying without the rise he wanted to charge me. Funny that. Poor LL, eh? Really odd that, as I was talking to my letting agent friend in the same area who said rents weren’t rising at all and in many cases were going down, but then if you’ve got a tenant you think has no other choices you can get away with doing that I guess.

Funnily enough the place I’ve moved to doesn’t seem to have such a problem with renters on benefits. Maybe it’s more a London and SE thing.

@LGY1

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?!

Someone who realises that agents prefer tenants who move on every year because they make more money?

Also anyone who takes the time to realise that agents are often the single biggest issue with renting.

As long as your local LHA wasn't a huge amount lower than the rent you ask for then you are mad to not even have met the woman. In many cases a tenant on disability benefits is a very secure source of income if given the chance because, sadly, their situation is unlikely to change.

The fact that tenants can stop paying the rent without much comeback for at least 6 months, and then the landlord has to pay the bailiffs to come in, is a huge problem in the sector.

This is not just a problem for DSS tenants, professional tenants also do it.

I have several friends who have BTL properties or companies and all of them without exception has had tenants who just stopped paying the rent.

One thing they do is agree not to pursue the missing rent in exchange for giving a landlord's reference. So, landlord references are not really that meaningful, because landlords will given them to get problem tenants off their hands and avoid the courts.

LGY1 Well yes, professional couples saving for a deposit on a house of their own and who have a high likelihood of wanting kids and needing to move somewhere bigger in a year or two are great prospects for letting agents. All those lovely marketing and vetting fees and admin fees you’ll have to be paying every year are great, for them.

Letting agents are the single biggest problem in my vast experience. They’re out for themselves, they tend to be slow then blame the LL, and if left to manage a property will piss the tenants off to the point of them wanting to move as soon as possible.

Letting agents are a business, after all.

To be fair, the tenants that absolutely fucked us over were self-employed, not DSS claiments. Unfortunately it's a risky business all round, not one I'll ever touch again, I think you need a very high stress tolerance.
There are awful landlords and awful tenants. I was a landlord while renting and we had a nightmare landlady at the same time as nightmare tenants, which felt a bit unfair.

@lyralalala private rents in my area are abut £400 more than the HA rates.
As time goes on I’m getting wiser to Estate Agents but this lady didn’t stand a chance when that’s the kind of message EA are giving!

The whole letting process is discriminatory. I am a landlord. I don’t deal with letting agents, I advertise (never restrict who can apply though) and I show potential tenants round myself. I ask them things while we view, about their lifestyle, work, children etc. I keep it light and chatty and friendly. I don’t tell them I’m the landlord and I use an online agency that advertises on Rightmove so I’m not sure they always realise that I’m not an agency employee. I make notes about them when they leave.

Once I’ve finished the viewings I choose the tenant that I will offer to rent to. I can tell you now that I prioritise the older couple with no kids who both have FT employment. On paper they are my safest choice. I don’t like renting to families with young children, they cause too much wear and tear. People on benefits vary, but if there are 2 adults and neither work - that increases the wear and tear in the house too. I run credit and employment checks etc. before we sign. I have had bad, non paying tenants in the past, families with young children. Via agents, before I realised that I can protect my asset better myself and save the fees.

I’m sorry it’s discriminatory and judgey. I want to sell up, property is really not my thing but for some reason the house seems to let really easily but just doesn’t sell, and I have a mortgage to pay so it can’t sit empty for 12 months or more while we try and get rid of it again. Being a landlord has to be it for now, and while there’s the demand for renting my house I’ll carry on being choosy about who I rent to.

@lyralalala
My main point, which I missed off my original post was....as long as demand outstrips supply the change in law is useless.
If I have one person wanting the house, they are on benefits and I refuse to let to them, then they have a case.
If I have 4 sets of people wanting to rent the house. 3 not claiming & 1 claiming.
I choose one set of people, how could the set on benefits say they have been discriminated against, even though my choice is very biased.

The other thing about non-paying is that with tenants on benefits you can get the rent paid you. Yes it does take time, and it’s stupidly harder than it used to be (they said no when my tenant asked and explained her reasons), but once someone gets two months behind it can be done.

When the “working, professional” tenant I had decided to stop paying I only had the eviction system. Which took months. I couldn’t go to his bosses and ask for a bit of his wages every month.

@Whatisthisfuckery Agreed. Agents are the biggest issue. They shaft both landlord and tenant.

[quote LGY1]@lyralalala
My main point, which I missed off my original post was....as long as demand outstrips supply the change in law is useless.
If I have one person wanting the house, they are on benefits and I refuse to let to them, then they have a case.
If I have 4 sets of people wanting to rent the house. 3 not claiming & 1 claiming.
I choose one set of people, how could the set on benefits say they have been discriminated against, even though my choice is very biased.[/quote]
It won’t stop you, but what it will do is push the mortgage and insurance industry to stop banning it. Therefore ll’s who would rent to someone on long-term benefits, but can’t because they’re not allowed, will be able to do so.

Hopefully the trickle effect of that change will be that the scum landlords who prey on the tenants who struggle won’t find it as easy as people will face more options to them.

There will still be those who discriminate. Just as there is just now.

@WitchesGlove

Landlords here saying that they are not rich etc- you do have to have a lot of money to have a buy-to-let mortgage.

You can’t just buy a house in a cheap part of the country and rent it out to cover the mortgage. We’d all be doing it if that was the case!

My brother has a house (mortgaged not owned outright) that he can’t live in because of work- yet he isn’t allowed to rent it out. And he isn’t poor- he’s a doctor with a large salary.

So ignore all those saying that they are ordinary people who became landlords- you can’t unless you are rich.

What a load of rubbish in one post!

@LinemanForTheCounty

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?"

Ehhhhhh?

2 people own a small 2 bed property. They get together and move in to one property. They rent out the other for £500 (mortgage is £450)

He works in a supermarket and she works in a shop. They’re on about £11 an hour.

Yeah, absolutely loaded!!

@Monkeynuts18

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

Like the pp above who had to rent out her dads property to pay for his care fees?!......

My MIL had a tenant on benefits ... she was pursued by the council for the rent money back as their claim had been fraudulent

I'd be interested to hear what those cheering about the ruling thing could be done in these circumstances - and a claim doesn't even have to be fraudulent for it to be stopped on a technicality

Maybe it's thought that it's just one more thing LLs have to "suck up", ignoring the fact they'll get round it another way (employers' references, payslips, etc, etc.)?

They cannot use benefits as a reason but can check affordability and do a credit check. Unfortunately many people will still not qualify

Some Councils and housing associations are owed millions in rent from their tenants but because of government legislation they are restricted from evicting those tenants.

THIS is why social housing is in such short supply. No Council is going to build more properties when private landlords can just suck it up and take the risks.