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

The LLs will just find another workround - requiring guarantors, stricter credit checks, etc

I’m a landlord and my landlords insurance premium would increase if I took a DSS tenant. I don’t actually exclude DSS Automatically but do feel I should be free to let my investment to whoever I choose

My MIL had a tenant on benefits, every time their claim changed they were paid late and so was she. Then to try and prevent that it was arranged that she would be paid direct by the council.
About 6 months after they left (with what they owed and the damage it cost her about £5000) she was pursued by the council for the rent money back as their claim had been fraudulent
She only managed to avoid paying it back by her MP getting involved.
Only 1 case I know but she never let to benefit claimants again

I will be happier when rent is capped

People shouldn’t have to pay £300+ more than the mortgage payments on the house

I understand landlords want the mortgage covered and then profit on top, but when your mortgage is way £600, why are they charging rent at £900+?

It’s ridiculous

Totally pointless as LL will still pick who they want on other grounds.

The main concern faced by a LL is not so much the rent not being paid, but the tenant not leaving after the LL needs to repossess the house, especially due to non payment of rent.

The court process is much too slow and LL are facing up to a year of non payment. Sadly, this is much more likely with people on benefits because they are more likely to want to wait to be evicted to get a council home and they are less likely to have anything to lose waiting for it.

LLs remain business owners. They pay tax, tax that is increasing each year for the past three. Like any Davy businessperson, they will always opt for the riskiest customers.

The gov can't have it both ways, expect LLs to act as social enterprise while continuing to tax them a bit more each year as a business.

There is always ways round things like this. Agents and Landlords will now no longer but able to say they don’t accept DSS, this does not mean they will. I’ve worked in an estate agents, there is minimum income criteria required depending on the rental price of each property. If they don’t meet this, then they require a guarantor who needs to have a slightly higher minimum income. If they don’t have that then they won’t be accepted. This would be the same for someone who is working but on a low income.

There are many reasons why a Landlord does not want to accept DSS, from the insurance, mortgage provider stipulating it to it being much more risky taking on a DSS tenant. If they’re short on money, are they going to dip into the their rent money? It is very difficult to get the HB paid direct to the Landlord. The Landlord maybe reliant on the money to pay their own outgoings, of course they want to take the least risk. Landlords don’t tend to meet their tenants beforehand so can’t make a judgement call. I do see it from both sides but Landlords get such grief when really they want to protect their investment. Not all Landlords have a multi-million pound empire.

This is coming from someone who has been a DSS tenant and faced all these difficulties and it was awful.

@3ismylot

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.

One issue with this is that there will be very few rentals that would be covered each month by housing benefit or the housing element of UC. Nearly all benefit tenants will be topping it up from their wages if they’re in work, or other benefits.

People shouldn’t have to pay £300+ more than the mortgage payments on the house.

Some rental properties will have huge mortgages, others will have none. Linking rent and mortgage payments is quite arbitrary. ( currently we are choosing to pay more on the mortgage than we receive in rent, should we increase the rent?)

Letting a house out is a bit of a Russian roulette situation. Some months you as a landlord will no no additional costs, other months you could have thousands.

Rather than trying to set rent caps it seems more sensible to focus on ensuring all houses are maintained at a good level.

@Soubriquet

I will be happier when rent is capped

People shouldn’t have to pay £300+ more than the mortgage payments on the house

I understand landlords want the mortgage covered and then profit on top, but when your mortgage is way £600, why are they charging rent at £900+?

It’s ridiculous

Because that’s the market rent for the property and it’s an investment. That’s like saying if you own the property outright you should let people live in it for a fiver a month.

Sorry @dontdisturbmenow I was meant to quote @Soubriquet

I wonder what the alternative that means the same thing that landlords will use.

Why would you want a tenant who can’t get a job as opposed to one that has made the effort!?

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.

Common misconception but is untrue. There was a court case about this a few years back. The vast majority of lenders don't have this in their terms.

www.mortgagesolutions.co.uk/news/2019/05/15/majority-of-providers-now-lending-to-dss-tenanted-landlords-analysis/

Why would you want a tenant who can’t get a job as opposed to one that has made the effort!?

Not everyone on HB doesn't work.

Probably because there are other costs to factor in? Insurance? Repair costs? Estate agents fees?
Indeed that and tax which now is also on capital.

Repairs are high when it is expected that carpets are changes ever 4 or 5 years, painting even less, new bathroom and kitchen every 5 to 8 years.

I'm a LL and rented my property to a single dad receiving DSS in November. I felt sorry for him as he was desperate and no-one would give him a chance to get on his feet. His ex-wife got custody of the children just before Christmas, he hasn't paid rent since and what was a lovely house is now a tip. He won't leave, I'm having to take him to court which has been delayed until September. My LL insurance won't pay because he's DSS. I don't care what the law change is, I'll never put myself in this position again.

@Wilmslow

Why would you want a tenant who can’t get a job as opposed to one that has made the effort!?

People are on benefits for all sorts of reasons. Unemployment is about to go through the roof and no amount of effort will miraculously produce jobs for everyone.

People shouldn’t have to pay £300+ more than the mortgage payments on the house

If you want to pay a mortgage cost, get a mortgage.

It costs a landlord more than just the mortgage to rent out a property.

I owned a flat when I was a student and rented it out when I moved away to work once I graduated. It was a standard mortgage and I rented it out for market rate. Over the year I barely made a profit.

I do wonder slightly why there is much more pressure to force landlords to accept tenants they would rather not have in their own properties rather than on banks to lend money to enable these people them to buy their own properties?
It seems perfectly accepted that banks get to undertake financial risk assessments on their money but not accepted that landlords would want to do the same things with their assets.

Not everybody on HB is able to work.

Not everybody on HB is able to work
That's why they should have priority on council homes.

Landlords may still choose who they want to let to just not in a way that is discriminatory.

@dontdisturbmenow

Not everybody on HB is able to work That's why they should have priority on council homes.

What council houses? They were sold off by Thatcher.

Why would you want a tenant who can’t get a job as opposed to one that has made the effort!?

Ignorant, much?