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

All the ‘them rich LL and those poor tenants’ doesn’t help anyone. Too ‘them and us’.

We need a rental sector that is fair, attracts good LLs, good tenants and responsibility on both sides. It isn’t up to the private sector to bail out social security sectors. However I don’t think good tenants should be discriminated against either just for being DSS, or anything else.

I’ve been on both sides. I’ve been massively discriminated against as a renter. And massively penalised as a LL for being a good LL. Not all LLs are loaded, I was poorer than my tenant at one point, house in negative equity etc. However on the whole because we have at least some capital in property, we are better off than those renting. However as LLs we also carry all the risks. I’ve twice had to fork out of my pocket because a tenant trashed the house, or didn’t pay rent. It cost me 1000s which had to go on a credit card and guess what I didn’t have stacks of money just to hand.

All this throwing around ‘you are rich’ or ‘you are DSS and therefore too high risk’ is never going to help though is it. What is missing from the legislation is a proper conversation with how to make it easier for LLs to mitigate the risk. As most LLs are not discriminating just because they feel like it, they are doing it because of risk and insurance, and until that gets sorted out, nothing gets sorted out.

I do have some sympathy with LLs. There are some proper scumbags out there and I wouldn’t like them living next to me, let alone in my house. I just wish that where circumstances allow they would look at applicants on an individual basis, rather then just saying a blanket no. There are some very good people who claim benefits, probably the vast majority.

We really do need something in place where tenants can check out prospective LLs. There are a lot of right dodgy LLs who don’t maintain properties, harass their tenants, refuse to return deposits etc. I’m currently chasing my previous LL for mine, and they can seemingly do it with impunity. There’s nothing worse than desperately looking for a place to live, finally finding someone who’ll take you then walking into a grubby little shithole that’s falling apart, and knowing this is your only option. It’s bad enough every time you move knowing that it’ll be into ever smaller places, but they get worse and worse as well.

And yes, I do understand that a lot of LLs aren’t loaded. I’ve never had one with a shit car and a small tatty house of their own but I know they’re not all rolling in it. Really though, if your own finances are that precarious then you shouldn’t be letting property. We’ve been told time and time again on this thread that letting property can be a costly business, which is fair enough, maintaining a house or flat is costly, but if you can’t afford to do it then just don’t. You wouldn’t want to let to a tenant who can’t afford the rent, and conversely tenants don’t want an LL who can’t afford to maintain their rental property, it goes both ways.

I used to work as a letting agent. Some DSS tenants were great...... However the worst tenant I came across who didn't pay the rent and trashed the property was DSS..... Colleagues would confirm that generally the tenants from hell are the benefit ones. However it is a small minority giving the nice DSS tenants a bad rep.

Is it discriminatory for a bank to refuse a loan based on someone's income?

@AskingforaBaskin

Is it discriminatory for a bank to refuse a loan based on someone's income?

I assume so if the source of income is legal. Particularly if the source of income is one more likely to be received by women or disabled people.

There are a lot of right dodgy LLs who don’t maintain properties, harass their tenants, refuse to return deposits etc. I completely agree, and unfortunately these are the ones who won’t mind DSS. We’ve got to make it easier for good LLs.

I assume so if the source of income is legal. Particularly if the source of income is one more likely to be received by women or disabled people.

Hmmm I doubt they would loan to those reliant heavily on benefits.
They do judge incomes. They do judge sources of incomes. Why can't those people kicking off go and get their own mortgage?

Because the banks don't believe they are a safe investment.

I assume so if the source of income is legal. Particularly if the source of income is one more likely to be received by women or disabled people.

Hmmm I doubt they would loan to those reliant heavily on benefits.
They do judge incomes. They do judge sources of incomes. Why can't those people kicking off go and get their own mortgage?

Because the banks don't believe they are a safe investment.

@Whatisthisfuckery I live in a tiny two bed flat, drive a little Ford fiesta and I'm a ll. Not intentionally but I bought a small flat for myself and then met my husband and rented out my place. We are OK deff not loaded. My flat barely makes a penny of profit and with the addition of capital repayment it actually costs me each month to run it. If I was forced to take the risk of dss then I just wouldn't bother. I know there are the majority of dss who are wonderful, lovely people but they also run higher risks of benefits being cut and/or causing damage and it wouldn't just cost me in lost income but also higher insurance premiums.

Being a LL is not as easy and lucrative as it once was especially if you want to be a good LL and keep your place in good condition. But there are so many additional red tapes to cross its just not worth it for many good people so they sell out to irresponsible ll instead.

@AskingforaBaskin

I assume so if the source of income is legal. Particularly if the source of income is one more likely to be received by women or disabled people.

Hmmm I doubt they would loan to those reliant heavily on benefits.
They do judge incomes. They do judge sources of incomes. Why can't those people kicking off go and get their own mortgage?

Because the banks don't believe they are a safe investment.

I guess you're right. So hopefully people will acknowledge the inability to access safe housing and stop victim blaming women who don't leave violent men.

But on a indivisible level. That's just not the Ll problem.

Why should a LL take the increased risk? And it is increased that's proven from the insurance and mortgage companies.

But on a indivisible level. That's just not the Ll problem.

Why should a LL take the increased risk? And it is increased that's proven from the insurance and mortgage companies.

FFS. Individual.

@Russellbrandshair

In the same way people on here get frustrated with the concept of benefit claimants being lazy, work shy, rough and the other negative stereotypes often used to discriminate, LL get annoyed at people assuming they’re loaded because they have a second property

People love to stereotype when it suits them but hate it when it doesn’t. It really is hypocrisy at its finest. I would agree that objectively, someone who owns two properties is better off financially than someone who owns none and is on benefits. But it’s all relative isn’t it? The fact we are all even posting on an electronic device on the internet and have access to the internet means we are better off and “richer” than a massive % of the worlds population. They would consider us “rich”.

Exactly- It’s all relative. Everyone on this thread is rich compared those in many countries!!

@LakieLady

Many landlords would be happy to have DSS tenants if they could be paid directly. I can't see any reason not to do this

I'm told by colleagues that some councils are very resistant to doing it because it complicates the accounting and that with HB it's a real hassle to set up what is effectively a third party payment.

The finance department at the council in the area where I used to work had a very good relationship with us and with the housing department, and were ok about making landlord payments if it prevented homelessness.

We managed to get our tenants on UC to pay arrears using the councils housing team whose aim was to avoid them being evicted and being the councils problem. In the end they got a HA house, once they had their reference from us they didn't pay another penny and left the place in a disgusting state.

What really annoys me is that they were receiving UC for their rent. UC that you and I all contribute to through taxes and they then spent it on beer, holidays (I'm not assuming I sadly have evidence) and the piles of plastic tat and instant fashion that they left in the house. They certainly didn't pay bills/rent with it as there are debt collectors letters amounting to £5.5k.
Why aren't people complaining about the mis-spending of benefits that gives UC claimants a bad reputation? That money was supposed to keep a roof over their and their kids heads. That was what it was given to them to pay for, why aren't they they done for benefit fraud?

They were claiming for the housing element and failed to spend it on housing 🤷🏼‍♀️

I just wish that where circumstances allow they would look at applicants on an individual basis, rather then just saying a blanket no

Again I agree in principle, but as tenants' protection is (rightly) increased and the scope for LLs to protect themselves lessens, more and more of them become less willing to accept risks

As said I agree too with the idea of a register, but along with rooting out awful LLs we also need to encourage the decent ones ... except that's not the sort of project which would appeal to the "all LLs are bastards" contingent

Why can't those people kicking off go and get their own mortgage?
Because the banks don't believe they are a safe investment

And unfortunately that would often still be the case, even if all the lower value properties were somehow taken back off LLs and put on the market

Having been stung over sub-prime lending before the banks still wouldn't lend to some ... and that's before we get into the issue of state theft of LLs' private property

People tend to do what is in their best interest. My last landlady was in fact the original council tenant who had right to buy, exercised it, and rented her property out at nearly £1000 a month for the next ten/fifteen years or so, she's now sold it on for 3 or 4 times the original price. Does she feel guilty or awful about being a landlady? She was bettering herself in a legal marketplace, and I needed somewhere to live so it worked fine for both of us. You cannot expect people to put their own best interests aside- that was her chance for a better more financially secure life and she took it. The council could, funded by government, built much more social housing, but it doesn't and it doesn't seem that interested in chasing vacant properties either, of which there are a huge amount in the UK which could be used.

It is up to the government to properly legislate the housing market for the benefit of all participants
The job of the housing market is to allocate homes fairly and efficiently, the government should regulate it with the end in mind

My FIL went into a home just before lockdown. His savings are going towards fees and renovations. We need to rent his home so that he has a chance of staying longer in the home. What happens if we have a tenant who doesn't pay? It will be a headache renting it out and I'm not looking forward to it, but will be a good landlord. I'm hoping we get a reasonable tenant. We will accrue huge debt if we get a crap tenant and are left with an eviction process and unnecessary repairs through a tenant wrecking property.

As for paying rent directly to landlords, I've been on the receiving end of the stop/start payments from councils, with tenant top up, with lies fed to me by tenant and not being allowed to know what was really going on by council due to confidentiality. However, council did write to tell me I might be liable for all the fraudulent monies my tenant received. It cost me thousands to repair the damage. If I sat in Tesco every day eating food without paying, how long would that last? How long could I stay in a hotel for without paying? It is beyond disgusting that theft of someone's property is allowed, and actively encouraged by councils - what other scenario is this allowed in? Certainly not mobile phones - tenant miraculously paid that bill! ...and their holiday bills!

All tenants are risky, but being paid in arrears, councils being allowed to obtain money back for what is essentially their risk assessment fuck up, policies such as stay put and continue stealing or you're making yourself intentionally homeless etc make DSS far more risky. Policy needs to change to make it less risky. Having said that, I would look at each prospective renter and wouldn't preclude DSS, but they would not "score" so highly in risk terms due to aforementioned policies. A tenant and landlord register could be a good idea.

FWIW, LL pay thousands in mortgage interest, renovations, maintenance etc etc which the type of renters who like a bit of LL bashing don't seem to comprehend. I have also rented and done low paying jobs - I earmarked my rent and always paid it on time and always looked after the properties.

It's time this country stopped treating housing as an investment and a basic human right instead. Poor people need homes as well. Unemployed people also need homes. Where are they supposed to live? We need stricter housing laws and rent control. Selling off council homes was a big mistake. You shouldn't be able to become a millionaire by owning ex-council homes and charging exorbitant rents.

@locked2020
Why do you seem to think that tenants don't understand what goes into maintaining a property? Do you think they're stupid or something?
As I said earlier, tenants are painfully aware and many of them wait and wait for landlords to do repairs and essential maintenance or do the work themselves.

There is a huge problem with properties that are falling apart, damp etc Rented accommodation is often poorly maintained.
The fixtures and fittings are often the cheapest available and landlords then wonder why the carpet fell apart after 5 years or the kitchen door is hanging off.

It's a disgrace and it shouldn't be allowed.
As @genteelwoman said, housing should not be an investment. Everyone has the right to live in a clean, well maintained home and pay a fair rent.
No-one should be going without food and heat so they can afford the top up on their rent.

I know it's unpopular but I don't give a shit about landlords moaning about how hard it is because I could find you far more tenants who have it much worse.
I have the same answer as I have for employers who whine about paying maternity and sick pay and having to treat their staff fairly.

You have chosen* to make your money in this way, either on people's homes or on their labour. If you don't like it or don't feel able to do this fairly and responsibly then you have no business doing it at all.

*I'm aware there are some accidental landlords but if you're still a landlord a few years down the road, you're making a choice.

I forgot a bloody asterisk just bolds everything.

@heysugar The main reasons for this is all the disincentives for good landlords to keep being landlords. I am an accidental landlord, my tenants have been thrilled (saying that I am the best landlord they've ever had). Because this was originally my home I am very protective of it - ensure any leaky faucet is immediately fixed, everything in the home is good quality, i have homecare cover to respond immediately if anything goes wrong and I have never left an incident more than a couple of hours when things have gone wrong.

Unfortunately due to all the changes in tax my profit margins are literally in the hundreds a year and that doesn't cover the capital repayment of my mortgage each month. Now I want to a new home to live in and raise my children in and thanks to the new stamp duty increase it will eat about 15 years of my profits from the flat in order to pay the additional stamp duty i would need to pay on my own home to pay for the flat. And that's with the consent to let in place where I am paying a very low mortgage charge. When I have to move to a buy to let mortgage my profit would literally be negative.

So I am having to sell, I didn't want to but I have to. I have tried to make it as easy as possible for my tenants and have agreed a lower offer on the basis they're taking it with tenants in situ (I'll admit that decision was not entirely altruistic) but I also think they will be good landlords.

If you price all the good landlords out of the market who are you left with? Sadly government disincentives hit smaller, more responsible landlords much harder than the big corporate, uncaring entities.

@sugar

"Why do you seem to think that tenants don't understand what goes into maintaining a property? Do you think they're stupid or something?"
A number of renters have said comments (inc on this thread) that show they have little understanding

"As I said earlier, tenants are painfully aware and many of them wait and wait for landlords to do repairs and essential maintenance or do the work themselves.

There is a huge problem with properties that are falling apart, damp etc Rented accommodation is often poorly maintained.
The fixtures and fittings are often the cheapest available and landlords then wonder why the carpet fell apart after 5 years or the kitchen door is hanging off. " yep, there are crap landlords as well as crap tenants

"It's a disgrace and it shouldn't be allowed.
As @genteelwoman said, housing should not be an investment. Everyone has the right to live in a clean, well maintained home and pay a fair rent.
No-one should be going without food and heat so they can afford the top up on their rent. " If a property is unaffordable, don't promise to pay rent there! There should be more social housing available.

"I know it's unpopular but I don't give a shit about landlords moaning about how hard it is because I could find you far more tenants who have it much worse." I am sure there are many people worse off than you - are you going to invite them in to share your property for free?!

I have the same answer as I have for employers who whine about paying maternity and sick pay and having to treat their staff fairly.

"You have chosen to make your money in this way, either on people's homes or on their labour. If you don't like it or don't feel able to do this fairly and responsibly then you have no business doing it at all." Just as a tenant should expect repairs etc to be carried out in a timely fashion, a landlord should expect a fair rent in a timely fashion!

I'm aware there are some accidental landlords but if you're still a landlord a few years down the road, you're making a choice." Tenants who wreck properties also make a choice - a choice that impacts someone else. It is not ok!