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

Sorry to hear that shiny red bus, it shouldn't be allowed and there should be a government compensatory scheme for landlords. My previous landlord made £40,000 plus out of me as well as £165,000 out of the appreciation in value my long tenancy afforded him. He replaced an oven at £500 in ten years. I worked, I paid my rent on time, I kept the house clean and tidy, I claimed benefits.

Why aren't people complaining about the mis-spending of benefits that gives UC claimants a bad reputation?

Perhaps because one of the stated aims of UC was for the benefit system to "mirror" what earning a wage/salary was like, ie one monthly payment, to prepare people for moving into work. According to Ian Duncan Smith, anyway.

Mind you, he was happy to use taxpayers' money to pay his wife a salary for doing nothing, include the cost of his underpants back as parliamentary expenses and spend £39 of public money on a breakfast, so he'd clearly have no qualms about spending the rent money on plastic tat.

I do think that more needs to be done to protect landlords though, like going back to the old system of benefits being payed straight to them.

The thing is this didn't protect landlords, because if the tenant's benefit claim was held to be fraudulent, the money was reclaimed directly from the LL. As I understand it most landlords wanted the change to payments to the tenants because of this!

A few months of mortgage, no rent and a hefty repair bill can ruin someone financially.

I stand by my view that being a landlord is a business. Yes, a landlord with one property and one tenant is exposed if that tenant stops paying or does damage - but running a business where you can only have one customer is a pretty crappy business model!

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.

But most people claiming benefits also work. I've received DLA/PIP for decades, for most of that time I was working.

we don't buy houses in areas which tend to attract claimants. If they were DSS the rent would be too high anyway as we aim for a different client. Our houses are higher spec.

In the early 1990s I was living in Hampstead Garden Suburb and earning 30K+. I was also receiving DLA.

@Bearnecessity

MarieG you have a very narrow understanding of DSS people and the housing available to them it does not represent the reality. In a free market economy new and old landlords wanting to make money will always find a way to do so, including renting to those on benefits.

If what you are saying is correct, then why do DSS tenants struggle to rent houses? As a free market economy the risk profile is much higher and therefore many landlords that do take DSS tend to aim at that market but the housing is generally much lower standard

I agree it would be better if we could come to see housing as a basic human right, the same as we do education
Private schools get to pick who they take on as students.

Why refuse all DSS without looking at individual cases including records showing years of rent paid in full on time
In most cases, it's not about turning down someone on DSS but having another offer from a tenant that is overall less risky.

My previous landlord made £40,000 plus out if me
How do you know that? By the time I've paid the mortgage, the tax (work ft and high rate payer), insurance and put 20% aside for repairs and LA fees, I'm left with exactly zero, as a matter of fact, a deficit since April. I keep it as a mean for a pension after retirement.

I stand by my view that being a landlord is a business
And as a business, you'd be a fool not to make decisions on the basis of a risk assessment and pick your customer accordingly.

If you're an electrician and gave two potential jobs for the next couple of weeks, are you going to go for the one less likely to pay you just because they will find it harder to find an electrician willing to do the job for them or will you go for the one you believe is likely to pay without trouble?

If LL could evict are any after 2 months unpaid rent regardless of the situation, many would be more willing to rent to DSS.

When it takes 10 months and often more, and you know that each month that goes by is another month lost because the tenants are highly unlikely to have the means to pay even after being sued, it's no surprise anyone would try to avoid it at all costs if possible.

Don'dusturbme...I know that because he bought the house outright for £38,000 15 years prior to my tenancy. I paid £40,000 + in rent the previous tenants must have paid more as I was his tenant for ten years and them 15 years. During my tenancy of of ten years he replaced a £500 oven and did nothing-els beyond normal yearly checks.

Obviously if your insurance/mortgage forbid it that will change too

Someone suggested that you can use credit checks and yes it's fine to use any means to ensure that a tenant can pay. It's using other tests to keep out the 'riff raff' that is discrimination.

If you want to keep out people because you 'don't like their kind' then it's time to sell up.

The excuse that DSS people won't pay is a bit thin. Especially with people losing their jobs all over the place. In many cases the DSS income is more reliable.

Why shouldn't I choose who lives in my house? Why should I be forced to take more risk with my asset than I'm happy with?

Because you are charging money for it and - like it or not - there are therefore all sorts of rules you must abide by.

You would not be able to discriminate based on a number of characteristics, eg sexual preference, this is just another one.

If you don't want to abide by those rules then property letting is not the business for you. It's just a simple choice. You don't want the risk? Don't be a landlord.

In the long run the solution is for the government to go fully into the rental business. It would take a long while but if we produced decent low and medium cost homes buying to let would die off.

Some of the comments are a bit disturbing. How many landlords here believe that people on benefits are more likely to wreck a house?

Some of the comments are a bit disturbing. How many landlords here believe that people on benefits are more likely to wreck a house

I don’t think it is about what landlords believe it is what the insurance companies have based their information on.

MarieG....DSS struggle to rent houses because the law has allowed LL and agencies to discriminate against them....that now appears to be changing and the risk profile will have to be sucked up by the LLs as opposed to tenants on the receiving end of it.

you are charging money for it and - like it or not - there are therefore all sorts of rules you must abide by

This is true, but it doesn't answer the question as to why LLs shouldn't be able to choose which tenants and level of risk they're happy with

You would not be able to discriminate based on a number of characteristics, eg sexual preference, this is just another one

Actually no, it isn't "just another one" - because being on benefits, in and of itself, isn't a protected characteristic

I know it's not another protected characteristic. It's another example of where landlords cannot just "choose which tenants to let to". They already have some restrictions, in the form of protected characteristics, so I am unclear why the question "why shouldn't I be able to choose?" is being asked when, under the law, they already do not have free choice.

A landlord will always be able to find a way to choose the tenants they want. All this legislation does is make unlawful to exclude DSS from the outset.

Sensible landlords and agents prescreen potential tenants before even offering a viewing and see the best candidates early on. Then they may pause viewings saying it's 'under offer'.

Now that landlords pay for referencing at £50 per tenant they are always going to choose those they think are most likely to pass.

It is worth bearing in mind that a LL does not need to give a reason when deciding not to rent to someone. They can just politely say no without giving a reason as this makes it much harder for anyone to suggest that they were discriminating against them based on a protected characteristic.

It is also worth noting that they are allowed to positively discriminate i.e. give someone preferential treatment due to a protected characteristic. For example, if they have a property that is specifically adapted for wheelchair users or the elderly, they can prioritise people with those characteristics when deciding who to rent to.

Allocation of homes should not be left to pure market forces because having a place to call home is such a fundamental human need.
The market needs to be properly regulated so that people don't get excluded from having a home, without a proper home you can't have a proper life, just as without education or healthcare you can't have a proper modern Life.
in a modern technologically advanced liberal democracy no one should be excluded from these basic things

I am unclear why the question "why shouldn't I be able to choose?" is being asked when, under the law, they already do not have free choice

I suppose the answer's that they'll carry on choosing in the areas where they still can, and find ways round the areas where they can't - some of which will be legal and some won't

I don't think this will make any difference at all. Landlords will always find a way to get the tenants they want. When I rented as a single parent I earned an average salary as a deputy manager. However I got turned down by a couple of landlords who said they wanted to rent to a "family". I asked them to clarify what they meant because my son and I are a family. I didn't get a reply so assume what they meant was no single mothers/there must be a man of the house. Interestingly my ex who earned the same wage as me applied for one of them and they offered it to him. Clearly a father and his son who he didn't have regular contact with were more of a family!

Letting agents put forward the tenants so the landlord can pick and choose.

So if the LL doesn’t want a DSS tenant then he’ll simply choose another tenant.

I don’t think these new rules change anything (I’ve been applying for rented properties lately and never get chosen over a professional couple - usually Doctors)

My previous landlord made £40,000 plus out if me

The rent you pay is completely different from the "profit" made by the landlord.

Have you factored in mortgage interest, insurance, gas safety checks, property maintenance, repairs & renewals, travelling costs, agents fees, accountancy fees, dilapidations provisions (towards longer term renewals like new roofs, rewiring, new boiler, external decorating) etc????

No, I thought not.

Sorry user you appear not to have read my previous posts I'll just refer you back to them as I can't be a**ed repeating myself. Your list of so called fees is hilarious. Why do people really not want to believe/say a lot of LLs are raking it in. Obviously not all...