to think that it should be illegal to refuse potential tenants because they claim housing benefit???!!

[StuckInTheMiddleWithYou]

I mean, what happens if a person loses their job, does the landlord then have the righ to evict them???

Grrrrr.

So, HappyMummy do you agree that Landlords should be able to put any restriction they like on whom they rent to?

Very dodgy ground that.

just out of interest what is a landlord legal standing if the mortgage company/insurers say "No HB" and so they rent to a working person.........who subsequently loses their job and applies for housing benefit? Can the landlord then evict the tenant?

(not me - I'm lucky I'm on HB and found a landlord who was willing to let to HB and even went as far as getting the houses assessed by the Housing Options/RAS scheme so that I could get the help to move in - just wondered in general.

Although I have to say I was looking to rent 18 months ago, some entire letting agents wouldn't even look at HB tenants, this time round I found a lot more were willing to consider it.

Me and DH rent out several properties and some of them are to HB tennents. But there are problems with this; delays if up to 10 weeks or more from some councils, rents paid to tennants but not passed to us (one tennant effectively stole £3,000 from the council and they took no action). If the rent is paid directly to the landlord and the claim turns out to be fraudulent the landlord has to pay the money back!
I would say though that landlords only want someone to pay and look after the property so if someone was made redundant and has previously been a good tennant no landlord in their right mind would kick out someone for going onto HB.
It is how we chose to make a living though and we should be able to chose who lives in our property.

EnglandAllenPoe send them my way please, lol.

"Yes, there will be good tennants on HB but the majority are not hence all the restrictions companies now have in place to protect them."

surely it's the minority who are not good tenants on HB who have caused the restrictioins? Don't forget there are many many working people who claim (some) HB as well so it's not like being on HB is automatically "benefits scrounger"

I am going to claim HB (camping with relatives at the moment) and so many agencies won't even consider me.

Want to chew somebodies legs off over this.

It's prejudice in the standard defintion of the term. It really bloody is.

Most people who claim HB are perfectly acceptable tenats who have hit a blip / are working poor / carers / disabled / recently redundant.

Those who are problems are the minority, and whilst HB may only be paid in arears many people who ahve been amde redundant or whatever can quite comfortable finance that gap with redundancy pay and the LL won't even notice.

Morally people should be judged on their own record, not an image of soeone elses, and if theya re able to prove good conduct then that should be enough.

Oh and IME the restriuctions aren't caused so much by behaviours of tenants but by hb dept delays and errors.

Absolutely, however it is obviously a big enough problem to set a precedence for policy if you get me. Until those issues are sorted mortgage companies etc will not change their policies. Landlords have every right to protect themselves from potential financial disasters at worst, inconveniences at best. So until the above issues are sorted landlords shouldn't have to bear the brunt of others' ineffeciencies.

YABU, of course. I used to think that it was discriminatory, but then rented my mum's house out to a mum on HB - good references, family known to neighbours, little boy just about to start school so thought she'd want to have a stable home.

Four months into the let, she stopped paying rent, hid from agent, refused to answer phone. We gave her several chances to pay, tried to agree payment schedule for arrears, still no payment. Then heard that she'd been slagging my mum off to all the neighbours, saying that she was being kicked out because we'd sold the house over her head.

So shortly after that, we gave notice for her eviction. We're now several hundred pounds down, and this is money that funds my mum's fees for a (not luxurious) care home, so not something we can afford to lose - we don't have the option not to pay care home fees.

I'd still rent to tenants on HB, but only working people, because they've got more to lose if they piss you about. I'd never rent to anyone without a job now, HB or no HB.

I wouldn't be keen on renting to housing benefit claimants again simply because of the way that the council can withhold your money, or make you wait for it if they want. They're a nightmare. I have nothing against the tenants I had, they were lovely people but the council were just so much palaver that I wouldn't bother again. I think that's probably the reason that lots of people refuse those on housing benefit.

"So, HappyMummy do you agree that Landlords should be able to put any restriction they like on whom they rent to?"

Not sure what that was aimed at - I said there should be some restrictions and HB is one of them. Its a big financial commitment to own a home and to rent it out so tennants on benefits, or with a bad credit history etc should be able to be excluded with no comeback.

Thing is, if everyone does that- where should HB claimants live? There's no HA housing for them either.

"just out of interest what is a landlord legal standing if the mortgage company/insurers say "No HB" and so they rent to a working person.........who subsequently loses their job and applies for housing benefit? Can the landlord then evict the tenant?"

My tenants went through a period of paying VERY late (due on 1st of the month and they paid around the 28th) for a few months, then they were ok again, i suspect that one of them might have lost their job but in relation to the mortgage company i have operated a 'don't ask / don't tell' policy. i don't know anything has happened so i can't be expected to tell the bank.

A bad credit history is very different to HB. Hb is claimed out of desperation, there being no other option (for me), a bad credit rating (as far as I am aware) is caused by unwisely getting into debt you cannot afford.

I am poor, my credit rating is excellent and I intend to keep it so for when I get back on the housing ladder.

I was a homeowner once myself, I understand the ramifications. That does not stop me getting on my lefty soap-box on discovering a horrendous example of legally-endorsed discrimination.

If it were made unlawful for landlords to have control over they let to, then there will just be less rental properties to go around. Landlords would sell up, or rent to extended family only, or find some other way of retaining control over their property.

The restrictions by mortgage and insurance companies are there for a reason: because statistically people on HB pose a greater risk. As I said on page 1 of the thread, a working person has more to lose, for a start. If you are in steady employment, you are less likely to risk not paying rent, or trashing the place, because your employment could be at risk, and you are hardly going to get a decent reference. If you have no job anyway, then you have less to lose. Plus the fact that it can take weeks for the council to sort out benefits anyway.

It's not logical to compare with racial discrimination, because there are sound statistics to back up the fact that renting to people on HB is more risky financially. Also, there is always the argument that being on HB isn't a 'fixed' thing - it is possible for people to change their circumstances and get work, whereas you can't change your race. Therefore you're not comparing like with like in making that comparision.

How on earth does the way you treat your rented home impact on your employment?

1. as usual it depends. It depends on the people rather than the circs, some good hb, some bad. Equally some good private, some bad.

1. Stuck - you are arguing for the general because of your particular - never really works. If you owned a 250K property, would you be happy to have a law saying you couldn't decide who to entrust it too...?

Because if you get evicted for late or non-payment of rent, or for trashing the house, you may find it impossible to find another property in the area (particularly as you would not be able to provide a good reference.) This could potentially mean losing your job. There is a limit to how far someone can commute, particularly if you are dependent on public transport. Someone who isn't working would not have those issues.

YABU

I don't see why I should rent a property on the basis that the benefits office can, at some future date, demand that I repay X thousands in rent because my tenant was not entitled to claim housing benefit.

It would be nice if those on here who feel that the OP is not being unreasonable could respond to this point. I can't think of another situation where this would apply - when someone claiming benefits buys something the shops doesn't have to return the money if they are found to have made a false claim, do they?

I'd have a law saying that you could not discriminate based on certain issues.

It is already unlawful (from my limited legal knowlege on the issue) to refuse on the basis of race, sexuality, gender etc

I firmly believe that claiming Hb should count amoung that.

No matter, the Landlord of the perfect (sob!) place I found is going to miss out on my upholstering, gardening and decorating skills. I would've probably have added value to the place.

violet - being on housing benefits doesn't mean that ou don't work.

Many of my friends claim housing benefit.......and work. When DS3 starts school and I find work - I will probably still be claiming HB as it's unlikely I'll earn enough to not qualify for any help with it.

Housing benefit is not only the reserve of those claiming other benefits, but also low income hard working families/people too.

That was to Stuckinthemiddle btw.

I am not suggesting for a moment that all people in employment are excellent tenants and all people on HB are are rubbish. I am simply pointing out that the stakes might be higher for someone in employment, thereby making them a safer bet. You often see adverts aimed at 'Professionals' too - which suggests that landlords are picky when it comes to choosing from the pool of employed people. And fair enough really, when its their property and livelihood at stake.

violet I can see where you are coming from on that, I really can.

However, it is a touch thin on justifiation for this level of discrimination.