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

I think that the introduction of tax on capital was only going to make matters worse.

As said, the very fast majority of landlords only have one property to let. A large number of these LLs will be on 40% tax rate. It means a massive chunk of the rental will go straight to the tax payer meaning that once the mortgage is paid, little is left. It impacts on their eagerness to pay non essentials repairs let alone replacement and decoration and pits them at increase risk when rent is not paid for months.

It might be hard to believe, but being a LL is extremely stressful. Its always there at the back of your mind that something could go very wrong any day. You go away even for a weekend and know you could recurve that phone call to say that there is no water coming in and you have to deal with it. LA are useless and are only interested in your money, so you often end up still dealing with the issue.

Why would anyone do it all if there wasn't at least some financial reward? But the gov have squeezed the reward to the point that it's now not of great interest. Good for all those houses that have gone on the market, but restricting those available for rental and even more of an incentive for LLs to be selective as to who they choose as tenants.

If you get 5 families interested in the property on the first day of it being advertised, of course you are going to pick the one most financially stable. Sadly everyone want the nicest properties and all compete for them.

Yes but that's not all LLs.

Mine own the property outright, they're only selling now because they were worried a post CV budget would mean they pay more capital gains tax. They've told me they've sold for £80k more than they bought it for and that's in addition to the thousands and thousands of pounds rent i've paid over the years.

I've called them twice in 15 years. Once the boiler broke down and I had no hot water for over 2 weeks. I could have asked to be put up in a hotel or reduced rent etc. I didn't. Same with the washing machine breaking down which I told them not to worry about as it was the day before their holiday. Not being an arse I said enjoy your holiday, sort it out when you get back so I was 3 weeks without a washing machine. Again, I didn't ask for rent reduction or anything.

I've facilitated viewings by prospective buyers at huge inconvenience to myself when I didn't have to at all.

I've been a nice person. I've told them I can't afford to move at the mo. They went ahead. They've been greedy wanting the benefit of rent while selling at the same time instead of waiting till void before putting on the market.

But somehow it's going to look like it's me that's being a difficult tenant or an arsehole if we get to the point that I have nowhere to go, can't leave and they lose a buyer. I don't want to do that or cause anyone stress but WTF am I supposed to do otherwise?

Yes but that's not all LLs
It is the majority though.

You also don't know their circumstances and only passing judgement based on assumptions. Maybe it's their retirement pot, maybe they need it to get an extension on their house so elderly parents move in with them.

Its shit for you that you have to move, without a doubt, but it doesn't mean it can be assumed your LL is a nasty greedy person. You don't know.

I’ve just looked online and there are agencies and gumtree listings that will accept dss

My council will pay landlord and then manage the renting of my flat (I know they do for other flats) but you have to sign a five year contract I want the option to be able to sell if I’m in a position where I can buy again as it’s not a buy to let property (and I only rent for a years contract because of this)

My experience of letting a flat to someone who's income comes from benefits (I've done it twice) has been that it isn't that they aren't reliable - both people were - it's that the system is terrible and the DSS are not reliable at all.

In both cases housing benefit was stopped abruptly at some point for no reason that I could fathom. In both cases it was reinstated but with a gap which the tenant then struggled to pay back and in one case never did - he left after two years with two months rent still outstanding. I survived, but I can really see why if a landlord is not financially stable themselves (i.e - can't easily soak a couple of months of no rent) they might feel anxious about letting to someone when they know they are relying on the bloody DSS to pay the rent.

I agree it isn't fair, and also I think about to not be legal due to this recent court case, but I can see why there is this fear of tenants on benefits.

It is ILLEGAL to discriminate on the grounds of no DSS. Any landlord with this clause is Acting ILLEGALLY.

It is a fucking horrendous caveat to have ever existed based upon out dated snobbish and unintelligent views. But it has been ruled by the high Court as indirect sexual discrimination because the vast majority of those trying to access housing whilst on benefits are woman or the disabled (both of which apply to you). Please see link below :

england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_releases/articles/no_dss_landmarkcourtrulingconfirmshousing_benefitdiscriminationisunlawful.

You can and shoidn challenge any landlord or estate agent advertising this, and remind them they are acting illegally and report. The landlords saying their insurance does not allow are lazy, their absolutely is insurance which will cover this at no more cost, and the landlord insurance brokers where involved in passing this bill. Its just like changing your energy company.

For a very accessible way of breaking this down please listen to the Woman's Hour podcast (on Spotify on BBC sounds) on this subject which was aired last week.

The MAJORITY of people claiming benefits work or care or are disabled and you should not be subject to this discrimination because of your circumstances.

Oh I do know as they've told me but thanks for the patronising.

Of course i'll feel sorry for you though. How awful to be able to afford 2 homes, I can see how stressful that is.

God knows why people are complaining about not having homes at all or inadequate housing when you barely make a profit because you pay tax on your highly valuable assets and your weekends away (what's that? Like a holiday? sounds nice) might be disturbed by someone not having water.

It's put everything into perspective.

I couldn't let out my flat to people on benefits because the lease doesn't allow me to. If I did I risk forfeiting the property altogether. This is quite common.

I don't think it's unfair or discrimination. Landlords should be allowed to let to anyone they like. They have an investment to protect, and the point of an investment is to get as good a return as possible. If it's wrong to prevent people on benefits from taking the property (because they are more of a risk) then it's equally wrong for insurers to bump up the premium on a person with drink-driving convictions or the home insurance of someone whose area has seen a massive increase in burglaries or arson (because they too are more of a risk).

Landlords let properties to make money, not provide a social service.

The real issue is a lack of social housing, in its absence landlords have taken on the role, and most have profited nicely. But the sad thing is that when they choose to sell, as long as they've done it by the book, going to court just buys a little bit more time. There is no way a judge will say ah go on then we will forbid them to sell. It's a sorry state of affairs in this country though, but on here everyone does seem to think that all landlords are rich and sit their bathing in money and laughing at their pauper tenants.

The other issue that has been created is that rent is not always paid direct to the landlord, therefore, there is no guarantee the rent will ever reach the landlord. If this was changed, I’m sure more would. My dad has a mortgage free property and has many many times let to DSS tenants, and has come up against issues time and time again. And as noted above, to get rehoused, a tenant has to be made homeless and this is often at the time and expense of the landlord and so you can often factor in a multi month rent free period to the end of any tenancy. To his credit, he does still accept these tenants but you can completely understand why others don’t.

It might be illegal but it’s also against many many landlords contracts with their mortgage companies and insurance contracts

They option is when references are required to only go further with those that are in employment

There is no way I would ever rent out my flat without being fully insured (I’m responsible for housing them should my flat become unliveable flood etc) and I can not do that taking on someone who is on

So the legal issue isn’t just with landlords it’s a much bigger picture

It is ILLEGAL to discriminate on the grounds of no DSS. Any landlord with this clause is Acting ILLEGALLY
So it will be removed from any advertising. Then what? LLs will continue to pick the least risky potential tenants, it will make very little difference.

Oh I do know as they've told me but thanks for the patronising
Really, they told you all the circumstances of their life? That's s'arrange relationship I can ever imagine telling my tenants why I need the money from the rent or why I've decided to sell.

Of course i'll feel sorry for you though. How awful to be able to afford 2 homes, I can see how stressful that is
I never said it was awful. I'm very grateful for my circumstances although you might be making assumptions about me without knowing my background and can tell you that I was in the same place than many who have no choice but to rent and indeed had done so for many years and it isn't through luck that I've become a LL, but it's easy to assume all LLs had it plain selling all their lives.

*God knows why people are complaining about not having homes at all or inadequate housing when you barely make a profit because you pay tax on your highly valuable assets and your weekends away (what's that? Like a holiday? sounds nice) might be disturbed by someone not having water"
I'm not complaining one bit, why would I? I'm trying to explain why I rather let my property to the riskiest family and why I don't see it my role to provide social housing.

And no there isn’t insurance that will cover because the mortgage company won’t allow it I’m tied in a contract too it’s my flat but I do not have full control over it (I also am bound to a leaseholder)

It is a fucking horrendous caveat to have ever existed based upon out dated snobbish and unintelligent views

As pointed out numerous times already it is about risk. Most landlords are servicing a BTL mortgage and any break in rental income could potentially put them in financial distress. Also, having worked in the lettings sector in a former lifetime there is sadly a very strong correlation between 'problems' (non payment, antisocial behaviour, damage to property etc) and DSS tenants. I know it is shit if you are DSS and do none of those things but landlords when given the choice of Mr & Mrs professional with continuous record of employment and DSS they will opt for the former.

It's a commercial transaction not an emotional one

For most landlords, this is the bottom line. Collectively, as a country, we’ve chosen to put housing pretty much entirely in the hands of the market. LL, even accidental small-time ones, cannot generally afford to be charitable or kind when deciding who to rent to: ability to pay rent, reliably, and not trash the property are the top considerations- not who’s the most in need or most deserving of a home.

Given the massive majority that the Tories got at the last election, I can’t see much of an indication that “we” want to change this and make housing more of a social good to be managed accordingly.

Having said that, as a LL, I agree that “no DSS” is a pretty unimaginative way to select potential tenants. The worst tenants we’ve had were working professionals. As others have said, my LL insurance only allows me to rent to “working professionals.

What do the stats say? Is there any recent research showing that tenants claiming benefits are “worse” than working professionals?

@dontdisturbmenow

Ooh, do tell us how it wasn't anything to do with luck that put you in a position where you're a multiple home owner. It'll show the rest of us where we went wrong.

It really doesn’t matter that the law has changed. Landlords will still be able to discriminate, but obviously not advertise it. If they get a few applicants for a property, they’re obviously going to opt for the ones they feel pose the least risk. And it may be that they are still adamant against having people on benefits, but who is going to be able to prove that? A bit like the problem women in the workplace have had for years - some employers don’t want to employ women with children, and whilst they wouldn’t say this in an advert, or in an interview, they are still free to choose who they want to employ. Same with landlords and tenant applications.

No all of us do own multiple properties

I rent the flat we live in and had to move for personal reasons

I know people who choose not to save or use money wisely for a deposit when they could have done and then the property market became too expensive so some people have made bad choices but that’s not everyone some the choice was never there and some took a risk to get a high mortgage and it paid off

And private landlords are needed. I speak as a former private tenant, because had there not been private landlords I would have been housed in grim temporary accommodation with DCs, or if not DCs, probably on a park bench or shacked up with family. The waiting lists for social housing are stupidly long in some boroughs - years and years, and if people think that this would miraculously change if private landlords didn’t exist, then they are stupid.

@Monkeydog123, I won't bother. The fact the assumption is made in the first place shows that nothing I could say would make some see it as it is.

As others, I've let twice to people on benefits and I was treated like a complete fool by then, sobbing stories that made me agree to flexibility that turned out to be made up lies to avoid paying rent, house, leaving after much damage to the house. It leaves a bitter taste.

As said above, I started as a caring LL, I now leave all emotions out of it and treat it as a commercial transaction.

Our landlords tend to want people who are in employment who can guarantee the rent will be paid. Sorry

Anyone would think that people in work never got into rent arrears. Which certainly isn't the case.

What do the stats say? Is there any recent research showing that tenants claiming benefits are “worse” than working professionals?

Not really sure how they would measure it, or share the data if pulled from insurance claims etc (and don't think it would be declared for a policy?). The worst tenants I had were a professional couple, they pretty much wrecked the place, were always late paying despite working, they had noise complaints against them. When I evicted them they were a nightmare, and that's what pushed me to sell. Despite the narrative that this never happens, I was an accidental landlord. After growing up in social housing and with no one in my family owning property, when I got the chance to buy a flat I jumped at it (following many years of doing ridiculously long shift in a job I hated but paid well). I then met my partner and as his house was more central and a bigger I moved in there, but didn't want to sell my flat; if we broke up I knew it'd be hard to get back on the housing ladder. I let perspective tenants know up front that I wasn't sure when I would be looking to sell, but did gave a guarantee of 6 months notice. Had a few people who were on placements nearby who stayed a year each with no trouble, and then after that nightmare I sold and we bought a place together. I charged under the rate of covering the mortgage, and made hardly anything all things considered when it sold, which is fine. I would consider someone on benefits because I don't deem it neccessarily (especially at the moment with the jobs market and redundancies) as more risky, even with the payments sometimes being stopped beyond the tenants control. Being a landlord isn't worth the hassle to be honest though, but if they all sell I reckon there will just be big business snapping them up; and almost a more cordinated yet unsecure rental market. Whether people see it as fair or not, those who own the properties should be able to decide who lives in them. The government should be getting it's act together in regards social housing provision, it's not up to Bob who inherited a place and rents it out until he knows what to do with it.

Anyone would think that people in work never got into rent arrears. Which certainly isn't the case
Of course not. They can lose their job, they can seperate but the odds is that are more likely to gain employmentoyment again.

Not really sure how they would measure it
Cases taken to court mainly I would assume.

[quote Monkeydog123]@dontdisturbmenow

Ooh, do tell us how it wasn't anything to do with luck that put you in a position where you're a multiple home owner. It'll show the rest of us where we went wrong.[/quote]
I'd imagine it was more to do with working, saving and making good financial decisions that put her in the position to afford 2 properties than luck.