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

It's great. So long as it's changed so HB is paid directly to the landlord.

What stands out to me on this thread is the lack of understanding of discrimination, so many tarring people claiming DSS with the same brush. Yes some have had terrible experiences but it isn’t the DSS that is Always the problem, it’s those specific individuals. To the poster who had bad tenant after bad tenant who’s house was left in a terrible state, if those tenants had been working....chances are the house would have been left in the same state if they were able to do that in the first place.

Some family members have had terrible ordeals with their BTL, in very affluent areas but problems none the less, doesn’t stop them saying no to tenants driving luxury cars, with their high flyer jobs does it?

I do think every LL should have to consider applicants with DSS, get their references etc and then make up your mind, don’t discriminate over one detail. So many people are struggling because of this.

I’m a landlord and feel there is a lot of misinformation. It’s like any profession, there are good ones and bad ones. I am a good one - I regularly inspect and maintain the property and provide improvements, haven’t raised the rent in 5 years despite the market value increasing over £100 a month since my tenant moved in and comply with all regulations and rules and often go above and beyond - but here is the caveat, my tenant is a good tenant.

It works both ways. It is a business transaction. She pays her rent in full and on time, looks after the property and is polite to the neighbours. We both fulfil our side of the deal and it works.

She is not DSS, but is a single mum who fled DV and financial abuse. I was advised by the agent to avoid her at all costs but I met her, talked to her, and her employer and trusted my gut. She failed the credit check, I had to sign to say I’d accept her against agent advice and my insurance premium went up as a result, but I knew she would work out well. Her child is now in the local school and they are settled and happy. I have zero intentions of evicting her or selling up from under her.

However, that property is my safety net. If everything else goes horribly wrong financially then that will either be sold to bail us out or it will become my home. It’s the same as a savings account for me and will hopefully form part of my pension. Why shouldn’t I invest in property?

Do I make a surplus, yes. But so do the council & HAs, anything I make is reinvested into the property in terms of running costs and improvements and that benefits us both. It’s not like I’m filtering money away from her to find lavish holidays. It’s a long term investment over 20-30 years for me. Not all landlords are unreasonable monsters - but it’s exactly that, an investment, my investment and that is why should she ever leave I will absolutely screen out whoever I want. You wouldn’t trust a rogue banker with your ISA....

LinemanForTheCounty it doesn't take weeks to evict someone, it takes months.
It was one of the most stressful things I have ever been through in my life and I'll let my house sit vacant before I let another tenant step foot over the threshold.

land lords insurance stipulates professional tenant (working) I cant shift my insurance for various reasons & it costs an eyewatering amount
I now pay tenants fees I cant charge extra for pet damage I have to have not only an annual gas service but also safety checks from next year I will have to have electric safety checks - I don't object to this I want my property to be safe but remember this if renters owned their own houses they would have many of these expenses on top of the mortgage, plus repairs & replacements on top of other things pp have mentioned. If on top of this you get a tenant who wrecks the house & leaves it in a disgusting condition (even though you always try to get things done asap) it costs to get it back to decent condition & the process of getting back accommodation when tenant is in arrears... & remember the council has the same problems & expenses.

A matter of interest - I was reading a social housing magazine & they raised the concern that more & more of their tenants are in arrears - a few years ago about 95% were not in arrears -now is in the low 80% this is becoming an even bigger problem because of the decrease in central gov funding.

There isn't a decrease. There just hasn't been an increase and in the meantime rents have increased. We're still collectively taxpayers handing over a £12 billion sub a year so it's not all bad. Like I say, I don't expect landlords to act like mother Theresa (although as it turns out even mother Theresa didn't act like mother Theresa) but please spare us the tiniest violin stories from people with spare houses.

@mumwon *
*
A matter of interest - I was reading a social housing magazine & they raised the concern that more & more of their tenants are in arrears - a few years ago about 95% were not in arrears -now is in the low 80% this is becoming an even bigger problem because of the decrease in central gov funding.

It is more to do with Universal Credit being paid directly to the claimant as opposed to the landlord as it was with housing Benefit. This is designed as with other aspects of UC to educate people about budgeting and paying household bills. Unfortunately some are just hopeless and will never budget preferring to pay for booze and fags. Some suffer household disasters or are unable to pay for essential things like school uniforms. If the money is there they have to make a choice.

It's a reason why some LL don't accept DSS claimants so they avoid the risk. I don't accept tenants with animals as it is always a nightmare and the house gets damaged and not fit to let after the tenancy

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?

Except that you have a reasonable right to expect that when you ask someone to leave your property, they go. That ‘bit of a delay’ almost inevitably comes with rent not being paid, while your mortgage payment doesn’t stop. Not to mention the court fees etc.

Renting has its upsides (being free to move relatively easily, relatively short commitment periods, landlord responsible for fixing problems) but win it comes the caveat that you cant expect to stay if you’re not paying for it.

Well, they do go. It's just that they only have to go if ordered by a court. I think that's fair enough tbh - it's a pretty big step to kick someone out of their home. What's the alternative? Landlord says go and no one oversees?

@LinemanForTheCounty

Well, they do go. It's just that they only have to go if ordered by a court. I think that's fair enough tbh - it's a pretty big step to kick someone out of their home. What's the alternative? Landlord says go and no one oversees?

Land lord says go after tenant refuses to pay rent for months on end then landlord has to seek permission off a judge to evict them and then still have to pay a sheriff to do it.

That’s fair?

Well, yes. Like I say, what's the alternative? This is people's homes you are talking about here. The places they live, where they work and have their kids in school and have friends and build a life for themselves. You can't just rip that apart on one person's say so. You need oversight. Most tenants move out within notice anyway, it's resolved, life moves on, it's not very nice but it happens. But you absolutely do need to have some kind of legal regulation. We don't have much in the way of that for private sector tenants in this country, certainly not compared to the rest of Europe or even the USA, but we do at least have that.

Uncontrollable greed! Renting out a house with a £600 mortgage for £900!

You would not be able to get a £600 mortgage on a property with a rent valued at £900. There is something called the interest coverage ratio - the minimum is set by the regulator at 125% but most institutions themselves set this at 145%. On top of that that there’s also an interest rate stress test as interest rates - surprise - could go up and you would quickly find yourself in loss making territory.

Just how do you explain that to the ‘I am paying your mortgage brigade’ who does not get the concept of ‘interest only’?

ilikemethewayiam I think you'll find there is a Boss of the housing market it is called the Government and English Law hence the title of this post. I am sorry you have had a bad experience, it is not right and in my previous posts you can see that I have said the system should change somehow in this regard. By all means select your own tenants to safeguard your investment secure references but I do not believe it is right to discriminate against people on benefits or those who fail to meet overly demanding credit checks. You cannot tar whole swathes of the population with the same brush it is not fair, more and more people in our country are becoming homeless, sofa surfing, living in cars or vans it is not right in a supposedly civilised advance society.

Really can’t see it making much difference tbh. It’s like discrimination when you apply for a job - your employer may not want to employ a woman, or a disabled person or an older person, so will consciously filter those people out anyway and give the job to who they want to, and it’s near impossible to prove. Same with renting - if the landlord has several applications, they can decide not to accept the ones on DSS, so the only thing changing is that the landlord can’t state ‘no DSS’, but can still discount them anyway at application stage without stating the real reason why.

why so people stll blame thatcher for lack of council houses , subsequent goverments have had over 30 years to build more

Because it was Thatcher’s policy. A bribe to get working class people to vote Tory. Councils weren’t allowed to build more social housing and, even if they were, what would be the point? They’d just get flogged off at a discount again.

@Junglerum

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

Housing shouldn't be an investment. It should be a basic right to have a roof over your head. If people like you didn't buy to let, others would be able to afford to buy a home on one income, and social housing would still be available for those who need it.

I think this is good news. They should also make it illegal to discriminate against people with children (disproportionately affecting women) this is more of a scandal imo.
I'm a LL as well btw.

@ForensicAccountant

Uncontrollable greed! Renting out a house with a £600 mortgage for £900!

You would not be able to get a £600 mortgage on a property with a rent valued at £900. There is something called the interest coverage ratio - the minimum is set by the regulator at 125% but most institutions themselves set this at 145%. On top of that that there’s also an interest rate stress test as interest rates - surprise - could go up and you would quickly find yourself in loss making territory.

Just how do you explain that to the ‘I am paying your mortgage brigade’ who does not get the concept of ‘interest only’?

You could say that about anything. It’s an investment for the LL, could be top up their pension or for when they retire.

It’s shit that people can’t get mortgages and they have no option but to rent, but it’s not the landlords fault. Their financial business is just that, their business.

Not all landlords own portfolios of property. Many just have one they rent out. If they face a mortgage on it- the bank doesn’t say, ok you can’t afford it this month, no probs. They still have to find the funds or it’ll get repossessed if it continues.

Top and bottom of it is the LL aren’t responsible for the fact the tenant can’t get a mortgage. Are the LL greedy if they make a profit? No more so than any other service that is provided in any other business.

Only thing which shouldn't be profited on is drinking water. That's it. All else is a fair game in the competitive market. Don't like how much x bread costs? Fine, buy Y which is cheaper. Same with rentals. But there is no competition with water supplies. Water coming out of our taps should not be making millions to someone.

Divert all that landlord hating energy there

I think the issue started when housing benefit stopped being paid directly to the landlord.
I know someone who isn't remotely rich who had single Mum in their house and she didn't pay for 6 months. They finally got her out but she left it in a mess. Cost a fortune to repair.

Fed up with scroungers (landlords) living off me while I work my fingers to the bone. I might not be on DSS but have zero sympathy for landlords. Think it's about time the government rinsed them.

Yes. It's disappointing it took until 2020 to establish this. It's pretty obviously indirect discrimination, and while there are legal justifications for that simply wanting to cut costs and make more profit isn't one of them.

Yeah, it's the lending banks that have this as a stipulation, not the landlords themselves.

Lenders and insurers do indeed include "no DSS terms". But guess why they were able to do so? Only because landlords would happily agree.

Unfortunately it won’t stop landlords from finding some other spurious reason to reject those people as tenants.

Indeed, I'm sure some landlords will happily break the law. (After all, many already do). But I would hope any decent landlord would respect this judgement.

So a landlord can not choose who they wish to do business with? Who they entrust their expensive assets in the care of?

Not if that choice is based on discriminatory reasons, no. In the same way landlords can't say "No Blacks, No Irish" any more.

I don't know where landlords stand with existing contracts. I would assume that in general if a term demanding one party do something unlawful then that term is void, but I don't know for sure.

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.

This situation is shit for everyone involved. But if, in future, other landlords cannot refuse tenants just because they're on benefits, that will only help reduce situations where a tenant given notice cannot find anywhere else to live. (But the way to get real change there is if councils would step up to the plate and house people who are given notice instead of leaving landlords stuck with the expensive eviction process before the council bothers to lift a finger.)

I don't care what the law change is
will continue to exclude benefits if I wish
Until then I would not rent to anyone receiving HB.

@PerfPower @Megan2018 @AskingforaBaskin good to hear you all plan to break the law. I hope the full force of it comes down on you. And to think some landlords wonder why their profession gets so much hate.

Why should I be forced to take more risk with my asset than I'm happy with?

It is rather that, when evaluating risk, there are things you must ignore. In the same way that car insurers now have to ignore sex when setting premiums. Because that is the law.

---

I get that being a landlord is not easy money. It can be tough, sometimes soul-destroying. This judgement probably will make it tougher. Yet it is the correct judgement. Tenants and potential tenants have a right, legal and moral, to not be discriminated against. Landlords don't have a right to an easy job.

(And "accidental landlord" is a misnomer. Every landlord chose to enter the business. Some just chose to do it with a property they already owned.)

@user1497207191

If only Brown/Blair hadn't changed the rules - until they changed them for no obvious reason, landlords were paid directly by the DSS so regular payment was virtually guaranteed.

I thought it varied from council to council?

Safariboot-

If someone doesn’t want to rent to ‘blacks or Irish’, how are they going to prove the discrimination?

@converseandjeans

I think the issue started when housing benefit stopped being paid directly to the landlord. I know someone who isn't remotely rich who had single Mum in their house and she didn't pay for 6 months. They finally got her out but she left it in a mess. Cost a fortune to repair.

Whether or not someone pays- why do so many HB tenants leave the property in a mess and why are there no consequences for this?

They should crack down and make it a criminal offence to damage a rented property and there should also be a bad tenant register that you can get put on if you are a stupid pig!