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

@dontdisturbmenow

You talk an awful lot about people making 'assumptions' while making numerous assumptions about others.

I was genuinely interested in hearing how you got into the position of owning more than one home with no 'luck' involved at all.

I'm guessing there has been some which is why you don't want to tell us, hard working people where we've gone wrong but hey ho.

The issue for me is that housing benefit used to be paid direct to the landlord now it's paid to the tenant

I was talking to a colleague who works in housing management (small HA) yesterday.

He was telling me how utterly shambolic UC is with regard to making landlord payments. For HAs/LAs there's supposed to be a "landlord portal" for communicating things like rent increases, but those that are in place aren't working properly and 4 years after UC started in this area the DWP still haven't set them up for smaller HAs. Where tenants are on "alternative payment arrangements", the money comes through without sufficient supporting information for it to be allocated to the right rent accounts and the DWP are unable to tell them what period is supposedly covered by the payments. They've even had payments for people who aren't their tenants.

Be careful what you wish for!

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

I think most employers are not going to suddenly and randomly decide to stop someone's wages. In my experience, the job centre will, and if UC stops, the tenant can't pay their rent.

I honestly think the solution here would be to say that the housing portion of UC gets paid directly to the landlord and can't be stopped as part of sanctions etc.

Competent landlords take out landlord insurance to protect their property and their business from damage and losses. Its a specialist insurance and if the policy won't allow DSS tenants the LL has no choice

There's also a specialist insurer who indemnifies LLs against losses and doesn't exclude claimants. When I worked in homelessness prevention, we often suggested it to prospective LLs and agents, and it was only around £8 a month more than the standard insurance. Tenants were often willing to have the cost of the premium added to their rent, so that the LL wasn't out of pocket. That was only a couple of years ago, so I doubt if it's changed much.

Anyway, it's clearly discriminatory against at least two groups with protected characteristics, so the insurers and lenders will have to change their t&c's. Hopefully, they will accept this judgment and not prolong this injustice by challenging it in the higher courts.

People like the OP and her family should not be treated unfairly.

If librarians were statistically 10x more likely to withhold rent, I wouldn't rent to a librarian

Being a librarian isn't a protected characteristic though, so that wouldn't be illegal.

Have you tried DSSmove.co.uk? They specialise in accommodation which "says yes to DSS". I just searched Greater London and got 119 properties, although clearly not all are suitable for your needs. Sending you all the best, OP, and you sound like an ideal tenant to me. Fingers crossed you get sorted soon.

@MillieChant

What? You've never heard of someone being suddenly made redundant?

Especially over the last few months? And in the next few months?

Where have you been?

You talk an awful lot about people making 'assumptions' while making numerous assumptions about others
What assumptions have I made of individual poster? The only point I've made is that we don't know people's true circumstances. However it is not a LL responsibility to get to know that of prospective tenants, even if they were even incline to share them in any case, and accommodate accordingly.

My circumstances are very much what majestic stated.

Being a librarian isn't a protected characteristic though, so that wouldn't be illegal
And LLs are not employers.

Good luck OP I hope you get somewhere soon.

Housing in this country is shocking. It needs that money tree shaking again and a mass building programme to get it sorted with 'affordable' being for the very lowest income. ie benefits level and minimum wage not the present situation where they call it affordable but actually its not and they are sold to BTL LL.

Discrimination law doesn't just apply to employment @dontdisturbmenow.

@Asha0med, just wanted to point out that if you move to a different borough, you won't be able to make a new claim for HB but will have to switch to UC. I don't work with families any more, so don't know off the top of my head how that would impact you financially, but one of the online benefit calculators would tell you.

There's also a direct access HA called Places For People who let direct, so you don't have to be nominated by a local authority. It might be worth looking to see what they have available.

Discrimination law doesn't just apply to employment
No that's very true.

But ultimately, I would never refuse to let to someone because they have a disability but because they wouldn't meet my financial criteria just like an employer can't be sued because someone with a disability cant sue because they haven't been given an interview despite not having an essential qualification required for the job.

@Asha0med. I have pm'd you.

Did anyone answer the question about what happens when the tenant loses their job and this mortgage/insurance no benefits policy? 12 month contract, loses their job 2 months in, and wait 6 weeks at least for benefits to be processed.

Or don't these companies get updated with the tenants change of circumstance?

If the government issued licenses to (vetted) LLs and guaranteed the rent and allowed for quick evictions if a TT was either a non-payer or a troublemaker then most LLs would rent to people on benefits. At the moment though the risks of renting for both LL and TT are huge. The government could quite easily fix this with long-term contracts for TTs and a minimising of the risk for the LLs.

But they won't. And once again the divide and rule mentality (Evil, Greedy LLs v Feckless Deceitful TTs) is nurtured and grows.

[quote canigooutyet]@Asha0med. I have pm'd you.

Did anyone answer the question about what happens when the tenant loses their job and this mortgage/insurance no benefits policy? 12 month contract, loses their job 2 months in, and wait 6 weeks at least for benefits to be processed.

Or don't these companies get updated with the tenants change of circumstance?[/quote]
It depends on your insurance company. I've seen some that wouldn't cover you. Some are fine as long as the tenant is in work when the tenancy starts

I don't know about mortgages

www.dssmove.co.uk/

www.newsnow.co.uk/classifieds/houses-flats-for-rent/dss-properties-to-rent-in-south-london.html

property.mitula.co.uk/

All have landlords willing to rent to those on benefits.

@lyralalala
What happens when the insurance company won't cover the tenant?

And thanks for answering.

Or don't these companies get updated with the tenants change of circumstance?
Most will cover in this instance because the LL has no legal right to demand notification of a change of circumstances once under contract.

It's not fair and YANBU, but please don't blame the landlord, it's often due to insurance or btl mortgages.
My friend was in a similar position, luck would have it she asked the agent to let her speak with the landlord, and the LL happened to be a gp who totally understood why friend couldn't work with the health problems she had.
You need someone who actually owns the property rather than LL on mortgage where the bank own it. We own ours as does ds1 and there are several of our tenants on benefits.

[quote canigooutyet]@lyralalala
What happens when the insurance company won't cover the tenant?

And thanks for answering.[/quote]
Then they don't pay out on any claim made. I only know about it because when I first rented out my Nana's flat a local LL told me to always, always make sure I was insured for a tenant on benefits because a) I never knew when someone's circumstances would chane and b) at that time you didn't actually always know if someone received housing benefit. He drummed it into me to never skimp on insurance

@dontdisturbmenow Your assumption that I couldn't possibly know my LLs circumstances, that they told me.

And again, please tell me just how you've been able to own more than one home just on hard graft and being sensible with no 'luck' required.

Not lucky enough to be in a relationship so you weren't having to form a deposit on your own? Or if you were but then split up not lucky enough to come out well from a divorce? Not lucky enough to not be hit with ill health/disability? Or a disabled child like the OP? Not lucky enough to never be made redundant? Or benefit from an inheritance? Or a financial gift from someone? Or low deposits and low housing prices at some point in the past? Or having someone that could act as a guarantor for you to buy? Or not being hit with unexpected costs from a death in the family or divorce?

Because all those things involve an element of 'luck'. Not just hard graft.

I've worked full time since I was 18 till last year. I have a professional job serving the public. My rent and bills have always been around 2/3 or more of my income. I had 3 cheap holidays in the last 15 years, couldn't afford to run a car. How was I supposed to save multiple thousands for a deposit?

So please don't tell me it's all about working hard, saving and making good financial decisions because it isn't. You've done well, good for you but don't think it's because you worked harder or were more sensible, there was definitely some luck involved. Be grateful that life treated you well, don't think you made better decisions or worked harder because millions have worked just as hard but life didn't always treat them as well.

Why did the system change from sending all rent directly to landlords to now only sending directly to tenants?

With UC, it was an ideological decision. Ian Duncan Smith was always bleating on about making being on benefits as much like being in work as possible, to prepare claimants for being in work.

I can't recall why it changed with HB. Back in the early noughties, it was easy to get councils to pay HB direct to LLs, and it seemed to be a gradual change, rather than a sudden one, but that may be because existing clients didn't have to switch straight away so it was only new claimants that were affected.

Mind you, there have been such massive changes to benefits and how they are paid in the last 15 years or so it's a miracle I can remember any of them, tbh!

I am a landlord with 2 properties. Both rentals are managed by housing associations. I have a BTL mortgage on each property ( interest rates are very low and and only slightly higher than a residential mortgage). I insure one property with a specislist provider that allows the tenant to be in receipt of benefit. I am tied into an insurance company specified by the freeholder for the other property but the policy allows the tenant to be in receipt of benefit.
The housing association manages the rentals very well and charge 10% + VAT of the rental fee for their service. I am happy to pay this. I am happy to have tenants that are in receipt of benefits.

@Monkeydog123, I made assumption that you couldn't know all your LLs circumstances, I haven't made assumptions on yours as you seem to want to make about me.

If you want to extend the definition to luck to that extent and all unforseen events, then yes of course there's been an element of luck but no more than many people who are not LLs.

Ultimately, it came down mainly to an accumulation of choices and sacrifices I made that many people are not prepared to make.

I think it's unfair to keep referring to 'luck'. For sure there are plenty of people who work very hard who cannot get on the property ladder, but it doesn't detract from those who have worked hard and managed to.

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

My BIL refurbishes properties for a group of investors who do exactly that.

They buy run down properties, BIL refurbs them, then they lease them to the council, who use them as temporary accommodation for homeless families. They get paid the LHA rate of rent, guaranteed regardless of whether or not the property is occupied and the council does all the management, repairs and undertakes to return them with vacant possession at the end of the lease period in the same condition as they were at the start, ie newly refurbed.

Because LHA rates were frozen for a few years, while market rents were rising, the investors started considering renting directly, but then the LHA rates went up massively, so they've decided to carry on. They just stump up the initial cash and then sit back and take the money.

Nice work if you've got the capital to start with.