To think that landlords shouldn't be discriminating against people on benefits?

[Asha0med]

I'm a lone parent with a disabled child who requires me to care for him full time, for this reason I'm unable to work.

It's not that I don't want to have a job, I've worked full time since leaving school but when my child came along my circumstances changed beyond my control.

I'm trying to move as our current home is no longer suitable and keep coming up against the blanket "no DSS" policy when reaching out to letting agents.

I feel ashamed and embarrassed when I'm repeatedly turned away on the basis I receive housing benefit, despite the fact I can provide a glowing reference from my landlord of the past five years. It's humiliating.

Without wanting to sound dramatic I feel discriminated against. It's as though people on benefits are automatically though of as lazy scroungers who just sit on their arse all day or withhold the rent / damage the property. Unwanted tenants. A liability.

I'm a good tenant and a good person. Is it right that I be refused housing on the basis I receive financial support form the government?

An article which echoes exactly what I'm going through.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53391516

Those who vote that I'm being unreasonable, please do let me know why

My lease and insurance does not allow me to rent to DSS so I am not able to.

Most landlord insurances / buy to let mortgages / estate agent management plans prohibit DSS tenants.

Your local HB or council might have a list of landlords who do take people on benefits.

Unfortunately it's been like this for decades.

Because of the health needs of your son, getting social housing might also be an option. Might be worth giving a housing advisor a call.

Itsu often due to the mortgage condition if a BTL mortgage.

I agree however it is the mortgage insurance companies estate agents who state as terms of their service.
Councils are complicit as have allegedly only offered housing to tenants if made homeless so lls have a terrible time if they need their property back.

Im a landlord, and would happily take people on benefits but both my mortgage company and insurance won’t allow it.

There has been a recent court case about this, so hopefully mortgage companies will change their policies.

There’s a lot of landlord bashing on social media - but this policy really isn’t our fault.

After speaking with somebody from the housing department at the council I was given a list of websites to look through but not individual landlords.

Two of the websites reccomeded were gumtree and right move, this is where I'm hitting the brick wall.

The waiting list and shortage of social housing in the area means I would be waiting a very, very long time before I would get something council - despite my child's SN.

The council are prepared to pay for a deposit and rent in advance should I be accepted by a private landlord which I think is wonderfully helpful, the problem is none of them want to know

I wasn't aware about there being a clause in BTL mortgages, with that in mind I understand where some are coming from, but this definitely isn't the case for all.

It was a condition on our mortgage when we changed it to buy to let mortgage and insurance didn’t allow!
We needed to rent the house out while having move out the area for two years so had to choice on the matter

If I wanted to let out my flat it's a condition of my mortgage provider that I can't let to anyone on benefits.

Also, and this isn't meant as a personal comment because I don't for one moment think that all people on benefits fall into this category, and you sound the sort of tenant people want, but the majority of 'nightmare tenants' I've known of - rent not paid, properties damaged, anti-social behaviour, landlord having to go to court to get possession of property - have been benefit claimants. It shouldn't be assumed but I can see why a landlord would baulk a second time.

Universal Credit hasn't helped. IIRC it used to be paid directly to the landlord and now it is up to the tenant to budget and make the payment - sadly not everyone is able to budget and the landlord still (often) has a mortgage to pay even if their tenant didn't have enough money left over to pay their rent this month. So they just don't take the risk.

No worries now Asha - they have just changed the Law on this type of discrimination - which I believe also extends to the mortgage and insurance companies that discriminate in this way.

The LLs posting here that declare this as their reason for discriminating like this should really check this out.

As well as single parents, this 'no benefits' stipulation also discriminates against disabled people and the many working claimants that need assistance paying rents that are far too high for many low-waged workers.

Of course - single parents, disability and low-paid work are not exclusive and often, many households include people with one or more of these circumstances. I know my household includes all 3.

Thankfully, I am no longer dependent on renting - but remember full well the difficulties.

Call Shelter - they're pretty up to date and one of the organizations behind this new Ruling.

As a possible way forward, could you ask if your UC (assuming you receive this) could be arranged so it's paid directly to your future landlord as I think some councils/areas do this? It might make a landlord more flexible.

It's as though people on benefits are automatically though of as lazy scroungers who just sit on their arse all day or withhold the rent / damage the property. Unwanted tenants. A liability
Its not that at all. It's about risk. LL don't know your situation. They don't know whether you are reliant on PIP for your child to pay the extra rent, they don't know about your child disability and whether he will always be entitled. They don't know how old he is and whether he could be moving out and your benefits will go down and again it being in a position to pay. Then what happens if they needed to get their home again and you wouldn't be able to move out because again, you couldn't find somewhere else so they'd have to take you to court to gain repossession.

Its not personal against you at all. LL won't think you are milking the system or anything like this. Its just that given the choice between someone on benefit and someone with a career, likely to move onto another position quickly if they lost their job, they will go for the latter because it is just less risky.

The problem is people like you who can't work should get priority for council homes. Instead you have single parents who get a council homes, then meet a working man who moves in with them, putting them in a position to rent privately but instead stay in their secure cheaper council home.

Everyone make decisions that suit them best but sadly some people end up losing out and if course it's not fair.

The law has changed although as things stand my mortgage company doesn’t allow me to rent to someone solely in receipt of benefits. My letting agency also had a blanket rule but hopefully that has changed now with the new legislation. Personally I think benefits are likely to be a lot more reliable than a couple of my tenants have been.

Today 17:26 HateIsNotGood

Somebody above posted this “No worries now Asha - they have just changed the Law on this type of discrimination - which I believe also extends to the mortgage and insurance companies that discriminate in this way.”

There has just been a legal case saying it’s unlawful for landlords to have a blanket “no DSS” rule, but there has not been any legal change affecting the mortgage companies yet. So I still have to do what my mortgage company says.

Reality is this means that many landlords won’t advertise “no DSS” but they also won’t accept applicants on benefits and will just give other reasons.

If you want legal changes you need to lobby government and mortgage companies, this one is out of landlords’ hands.

I don't think the law has completely changed yet. A judge ruled it illegal in the test case, but that was just recently so mortgage companies and insurance companies likely still have the chance to appeal it I'd assume?

It'll take time before it filters through. Which is shit.

Do you know anyone else who rents? Landlords sometimes know other landlords.

Thank you for all the replies

It's great to know the law has changed but despite that, these agencies don't seem to be budging.

I spoke to a lovely man this afternoon from a lettings agent who said he absolutely would accept tenants on HSB but the landlord for this particularly property only wants "professionals". He promised to email the landlord before he left the office to see whether there would be any room to negotiate.

Ironically I was a professional 5 years ago, had it not been for my child being born with a life long disability I still would be.

I would be happy for my UC to be paid directly to a landlord, this wouldn't be an issue for me. I've also insisted I provide a sterling reference from my current landlord to evidence the fact I'm a good tenant. It didn't make a difference.

I spoke with 5 letting agents today and was only taken seriously by one, the gentleman mentioned above.

One lady i spoke with made me feel very small for even asking if they'd consider HSB.

"Oh.. erm. We've never had that question before here. I don't think so no. Our landlords tend to want people who are in employment who can guarantee the rent will be paid. Sorry"

What is up with that? Like a PP said, I think housing benefit is very stable and reliable. I've been in receipt for 5 years and never been subject to a sanction. I'm not required to look for work due to my child's condition so I'm exempt from any such sanctions. I've never had an issue with paying my rent and am thought of as a very trustworthy and respectful tenant.

So many people must be getting UC now - those who have lost jobs, self employed, etc.

I think the insurance companies cannot enforce the rule about dss if the law says it is unlawful to exclude those tenants - the onus should be on landlords to find insurance companies who will provide policies at a reasonable not excessive fee to support them - but that will only happen if landlords pursue this.

Back in the day when it only took three or four weeks for a new claimants payments to come through AND payments could be made direct to the landlord easily, as standard.. DSS tenants were great.

Now it can take 6 weeks or more for money to come in, tenants can lose their income in a blink of an eye, for weeks on end, and payments are made direct to the claimant unless there are serious extenuating circumstances (and to request that the landlord has to go 8 weeks without a rent payment).

Im afraid I can very much see why landlords don't want the hassel, and financial bods don't want the risk.

It is not fair, but the blame really lies with the DWP and mortgage companies/insurance companies rather than landlords.

This insurance/mortgage thing.
Something that has always confused me.

If they don't allow DSS tenants, then what happens when the professional loses their job and ends up on benefits?

Yes - Remy - you might well be correct as at the moment as I've not delved into it too deeply, because, quite selfishly, it isn't a situation that directly affects me anymore. My main source of info has been the R4 broadcast last week whose main contributer was from Shelter and outliined the 'bones' of the Ruling. And I know full well that you don't go by a singular source of info.

All areas are different, and I've lived in a few, in a varied palette of circumstances - so where I live now, more than a few properties are bought by BTLers - who may be local or not - in the latter case most rely on EAs to manage their BTLs.

don'tdisturbme's post is interesting in that it avers that a LL "can't know" how/which/much benefits are claimed and spent - yet often many months of bank statements can be asked for as part of a Tenant's application.

Surely it isn't beyond the wit of most LLs to independently carry out their own risk assessment of a potential Tenant rather than rely on EAs who often outsource their Credit Assessments anyway.

Whilst a working high-waged Tenant might be appealing at first - not only are they just as likely to default - the're more than likely to move out more quickly (buying their own place, moving for their career) than your local low-waged, benefit-receiving single parent Tenant.

Consider that risk too :)

Unfortunately it’s the risk factor. I’m a LL and would rent to a tenant on UC as long as they had a guarantor, but if it came to it I would prefer a tenant who was working and had a comfortable enough wage to pay the rent themselves.

What gets me is that there are so many new house building sites in my area ( much of it in previously designated greenfield sites) which are advertising ‘ luxury apartments’ or ‘ luxurious 3/4/5 bedroomed’ properties yet there’s precious little affordable homes available.
Added to that, councils are reluctant or unable to build new properties .
Private landlords aren’t wanting buy and refurb properties at a loss. Why would they? Many landlords have either invested in a property or inherited a property in order to provide an income or a pension that they wouldn’t ordinarily receive for whatever reason.
There needs to be a concerted effort by the government and local councils to provide accommodation for people whose income ability is low. This is barely happening . As a society we seem to be forgetting those people who are unable to get affordable housing , for whatever reason.
Ok , rant over.

OP. Many areas have housing associations that have a large portfolio of properties and are able to provide many varied types of properties for people in your situation.
My own mum lives in a Housing Association flat and is very well catered for in a ground floor flat and the association provides extra support if needed. She is in receipt of DLA etc...This housing association also has many different types of property available to all income groups.
You might need to google .
I don’t think I’ve been very helpful to you but there are properties out there for you, I feel sure.

You must NOT feel embarrassed OP. The system is wrong and it is not your fault.
I am embarrassed myself for living in a country that has little respect for lovely and hard working parents such as you.
Good luck OP.

In my case and I suspect many others, the local authority are prepared to pay not only the deposit but also the rent in advance.

So if it takes 4-6 weeks for my UC claim to be switched over to the new address, I wouldn't be in arrears at any point because the rent in advance would have been paid.

^You must NOT feel embarrassed OP. The system is wrong and it is not your fault.
I am embarrassed myself for living in a country that has little respect for lovely and hard working parents such as you.
Good luck OP.^

Thank you so much, what a lovely thing to say. I appreciate the kind words