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

@PerfectPenquins I would mention you're thinking of approaching Shelter to your Housing Officer - in our area some of the Councils withdraw support once Shelter are engaged.

I'm not entirely sure why - my guess is either there is a certain funding they draw down per person they provide this service to (and therefore only one lot of funding is available) or it's some kind of conflict of interest etc.

I would suggest as a PP said and going through the Housing Policy with a fine tooth comb for every single thing that will increase your banding - Letters from Doctors / Midwifes / HCP's / Schools / CAMHS can all help add weight.

In some cases the tenant may not even tell the landlord that they are receiving some taxpayer-assistance during a lean period between jobs etc.

@alsohuman agree.
Were on UC as my partner got too ill last year to work and we had no other choice. He also receives a limited capability payment.
I work as a nurse 28.5 hours a week.
Our rent is paid on time, and our house kept clean and tidy, just like before we were on benefits.
Nothing has changed.

So glad this has come into play, we need to move next year as will need a 3 bed, but was so worried about not being accepted anywhere on UC. Or needing an extortionate amount of money up front to secure a place.

I wonder how they will enforce it. Surely the credit check will still remain. I also get references from employers.

Does this mean I get a better chance of council housing because not everyone with full time jobs can afford private

Well then banks have to change their terms.

It wasn't my choice not to rent my property to someone on benefits, if i did i was breaking the terms of my BTL mortgage

Oh yeah and don't tell them you're getting advice from shelter. Just use the info that you get from shelter. It's none of their damn business who you talk to.

As a landlord my experience is that my local council insist that the landlord go through the whole eviction process when requiring the property back from someone in receipt of HB. So you can't just serve notice and have your house back in 2 months.

I had to go through the eviction process and pay to see it through to the bailiff visit and all the other associated costs and then pay to change the locks.

My local council treats the renter leaving without being evicted by bailiffs as voluntary homelessness and will not house them.

It's a shit situation. I have nothing against someone being in receipt of housing benefit, however the council policies have put me off.

@Bearnecessity

Sorry but landlords should never have been so entitled as to control housing stock in this way. If they cannot deal with the fear or risk they should not be allowed to be landlords in the first place. After all Landlord's insurance does exist now.

I own 1 property, I am not a property magnet with a huge portfolio, just a little flat that was mine until I met and moved in with my now DH. There is No Boss of the housing market who dictates who can and cannot be a LL. it is entirely up to me who I will allow in my property. I have already been bitten by renting to someone on benefits. They stopped paying rent. I had to go to court to evict them. They then disappeared without a trace and trashed my flat!. My LL insurance of course didn’t pay for all the damage so I was still thousands out of pocket. I am not rich, I am just a ordinary average paid person. My LL insurance has now increased. That’s not free you know!. It has to be factored into the rental costs. I’m not social services! I’m not responsible for providing essential services as PP put it. That’s the role of government. By the time I pay mortgage, EA Fee’s, inventory costs, tax etc, etc I barely make any money on it. If the government now decrees I cannot choose who I will have living in my property I will simple sell up. It’s already not worth the hassle.

And yet landlords can still stipulate “no children” on 3+ bedroom properties.

Which discriminates against age and single women.

Many larger properties in Cornwall say “couples only”. So the landlord expects 2+ bedrooms to remain empty. It’s so weird.

(Can understand this if the property is on a working farm, has concrete steps, on a main A road etc etc)

Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter, said: "This momentous ruling should be the nail in the coffin for 'No DSS' discrimination.

I think Polly Neate is an idiot and just giving this as a sound bite. She knows full well this can be circumvented.

There is a reason why some (in fact a lot) of landlords say no DSS and that is because the tenants have a higher risk factor in not paying their rent and not maintaining the property. Not all but a higher proportion.

Im a landlord and I have always accepted DSS. I just want references.
Sometimes DSS>Unsteady job.
Sometimes people who work a lot don't make the time to look after a house.
Never had an issue with it. I think this is a step in the right direction BUT for those landlords who don't accept DSS, as others have said it isn't always their choice to not.

I just want to add that the “no children” rule in large 3 & 4 bed houses tend to be of shite 90s decor with standard lawned gardens on standard family estates.... and I expect it’s just a backwards Cornish problem.

@berryhead2013 I think my insurance was organised through towergate last time I had DSS

See, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. All tenants have a right to stay in their home until ordered to leave by court. Doing this is not illegal or in breach of contract. Tenants have very few rights in the UK compared to other countries but one right they do have is that they only lose their home if a court orders it. You giving notice is just you giving notice. A heads up, if you like. It's not legally binding and it merely signifies intention. A tenant can choose to either heed that and move out or decide that doesn't work for them and remain in their home until ordered to leave. And quite frankly if there is any chance at all for your tenant - on being told they will be deprived of their home - to utilise the fact of their impending deprivation of home in order to access a secure affordable lifetime tenancy in the extra weeks that waiting for a court order entails, can you blame them? You still own the bloody house, after all. What you are beefing about here is a bit of a delay in getting into it, while the person you evict has lost their home. Maybe a little perspective?

For landlords to request the rent goes straight to them isn’t that easy. The tenant has to prove they are incapable of managing their own money.

Many moons ago I rented private and had housing benefit, I also worked part timeand had dd1. I kept the house lovely and left when I moved in with Dh

We eventually bought two houses. Refurbed them from top to bottom and let them out to DSS and it was a fucking nightmare. One tenant didn’t pay her rent for two months after living in, when I called round one day the back door was open and the house was empty and she had took the washing machine, fridge and cooker that was in the property. Another he had been paying her rent left to live in to a bigger house. Only she had actually moved out two weeks before she told me she was leaving. When I left myself in the house it was awful. Doors with punch holes in, kids had written all over the walls, the bathroom was black with mould. Dog shit every where, bin bags of rubbish all over the floor. It took £2000 to repair it. Then about two months after the council contacted me and demanded that previous months money back. The CF had back dated her housing benefit to the new house and I had to fucking pay the council back.

The next tenant burnt the house down. ( and the two connecting neighbours)

We sold both after that.

I don’t blame landlords making sure that who they let to goes through rigorous vetting

It's also weird and scary how many people accept a society where disabled people have no guarantee of safe housing. It's still relatively recent. It was the 1988 (or 89?) Housing Act that changed things. Made worse by amendments in the late 90s. Within living memory for many of us. Until then we had rent control and secure private tenancies. Some people still have one of the old assured tenancies. Both Conservative and Labour governments made things harder for disabled people. It was Labour that pushed Buy to Let. The Blairs took advantage in fact. They own a string of buy to let homes. I wonder if they let to benefits tenants.
I rented in the 90s (in London). At times on benefits. Never had to tell the landlord. You paid your deposit, you were housed. But benefits covered the rent then. Now they often fall short.
@mencken It's not just London. It affected disabled Londoners sooner maybe but unfortunately the rest of the country is catching up. It used to be maybe but look on sites like Rightmove. Try lots of areas. Most won't accept benefits or the rents are above benefit levels.

That was to @Minimoosher.

You still own the bloody house, after all. What you are beefing about here is a bit of a delay in getting into it, while the person you evict has lost their home. Maybe a little perspective?

A tenant that refuses to leave normally stops paying rent as they know they are being evicted, that’s if they have been paying untill then.

When tenants stop paying landlords still have to pay the mortgage. This can go on for for a long time, coukd you afford to pay another mortgage for 12 months on top of your outgoings?

You got stats for that? Because if a tenant is relying on the homeless/threatened homeless route to be housed that won't work if they're in arrears. Councils categorically and unequivocally state that tenants under notice need continue to pay rent. If they don't, they won't be housed and the hearing endorsing eviction will also order payment.

And again, no one ever has to wait a year for eviction proceedings. We're talking weeks at most. During which time the tenant is legally entitled to quiet occupation.

@LinemanForTheCounty

You got stats for that? Because if a tenant is relying on the homeless/threatened homeless route to be housed that won't work if they're in arrears. Councils categorically and unequivocally state that tenants under notice need continue to pay rent. If they don't, they won't be housed and the hearing endorsing eviction will also order payment.

And again, no one ever has to wait a year for eviction proceedings. We're talking weeks at most. During which time the tenant is legally entitled to quiet occupation.

It doesn’t play out like that. A tenant can cut off all communication for months, then you have to have court proceedings, if the tenant fights you in court it can drag out. Then you have to pay for bailiffs to go in.

You can not have a tenant out in a couple of weeks. In reality it dies not play out like that. I’ve been there!

As I understand it, a landlord can only request to receive HB directly after the tenant has been in arrears or they request it because of issues managing their money. 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.

speakeasy one reason would be that if the HB claim is found to be fraudulent it can be reclaimed from the LL, even if they had no idea

As a LL if I can get a choice of potential tenants within days of advertising my property, and the choice is 2 working adults vs one adult at home all the time (unemployed or disabled) with several children. I'm going to pick the employed tenants as the less time they are at home the less general wear and tear on my property.

My property is a financial investment not a charity, it's that simple.

Of course if I was struggling to fill my property I would widen my criteria, but this has never been necessary (and it's by no means an expensive rental property). So I think unless the rental market is over saturated with properties, LL and letting agents will still favour non-DSS even if they do not advertise this.

More social housing is needed, and more affordable housing needs to be built so employed people can move on out of the rental market and free up rental housing.

@Cyw2018 I totally get that. There is a fundamental tension here by expecting commercial entities to fulfill the all providing all encompassing arm of a benevolent state. Of course landlords are going to act in their own best interests. They would be foolish not to. The real failing is the lack of state provision.

That said, I can't muster up a great deal of sympathy for someone with a spare house, even if it falls into their lap as oh such a surprise via a dead nana, experiencing temporary inconvenience in terms of costs incurred from it or difficulties in gaining access to it, compared to a person losing their home.