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.

"I am simply pointing out that the stakes might be higher for someone in employment, thereby making them a safer bet. "

and what about those in employment but claiming housing benefit???

Stuck, what you seem to have trouble grasping is that different rules apply to private and hb tenants which make hb tenants far less attractive.

IMO professionals often means "no children" (regarldess of whether you earn 100k or 10k )

I am not having any trouble grasping it - so much as railing against it!

wb - that is another excellent reason why many landlords feel the risk is too high. And you're right - no one has responded to it! Why should the landlord be responsible for handing back the rent paid to them, if the tenant has committed fraud?

Not really. If insurance is higher for tenants on housing benefits, there is a reason: in the way that car insurance is higher for some people. There is a reason for this -- if it is the case, and I don't know if it is.

The reason will be experience of higher claims and assessed risk. It is not baseless discrimination, if this is the case.

I agree it's ridiculous if the tenant has committed fraud the landlord has to pay it back.

However, because I know how lboody awful HB are making cock-ups and I don't trust them to pay the correct amount of money at the correct time to my landlord I have requested it to be paid to me. Then (as they did last month) they messsed up (or rather missed) a payment, I know straight away and just have to use my CTC/other money to pay the rent and cross my fingers tight that the missing HB comes to me in time for paying my other bills.

and I see you are not responding to that fact that many hard working people on low incomes are also HB claimants.

People without money are discriminated against all the time though- why would housing be any different?

A property is the most expensive thing a landlord owns... surely he would be discriminating about who it is rented to? He has to protect his asset.

Backtotalk - Life insurance is another one. Your premium may be much higher if you have certain medical conditions. Now, you can argue til you're blue in the face that it isn't an individuals fault if they are born with a medical condition, or develop one. And you can also argue that not everyone with that condition will die early. And indeed someone in perfect health could be struck down by some mystery disease out of the blue.

But the point as you say is assessed, statistical risk.

It was a cunning plan. The tories sold off all the social housing because 1. they figured they would get more votes from owner occupiers and 2. it is frankly a hassle to run.

Therefore buy to letters stepped in with inducements to fill the gap. Buy to letters operate as a business, often on very tight margins, if a tenant doesn't pay the rent, they can't pay the mortgage and bye bye house. Govt delighted to have shifted problem and have buy to letters demonised. they went even further and chanfed the hb rules (which are often exploited) so the rent couldn't go direct to landlords. Hence enormous arrears that can NEVER be recouped. HB can only be paid afte rrent is 8 weeks in arrears. If you start eviction proceedings then, it can take months more to get the tenant out with more lost rent.

Believe it or not, most landlords want a peaceful, slightly profitable, reliable income life and do not throw tenants out willy nilly.

If anything, I htink the law should be changed so that even one days' arrears means suitcases at dawn.

And what about all the 17 - 25 age group drivers who are incredibly competent, safe drivers, yet have to pay skyhigh insurance because other young drivers pose such a risk?

It's no different. If you belong to a group which is statistically more risky, then you pay the price.

Sorry, is that to me? I don't dispute it.

toccatta - I don't see what there is to respond to, regarding working people on HB. Yes, some people work and get HB. Which means that they don't earn enough to pay the rent out of their earnings. Which means they pose a bigger risk to the landlord/mortgage company.

no sorr wb - was to violet who has mentioned several times about how working people are less risky than those on benefits.........when atually many people struggling to find housing that accept HB are hard working people, stuck on low wages.

this really doesn't compare to race or sex discrimination

The HB should go to the landlord then. And the council should never be able to pursue the landlord for rent monies the tenant claimed fraudulently or was not entitled to.

I think the council should have a max of one fiscal year to catch out overpayments and what not and beyond that, tough, in general.

As for HB and working poor, we've had to claim partial HB in the past.

And tbh, it's the working/FT employment that's the issue.

It's not been a problem to find a landlord to rent, even 'No DSS' ones, if you can prove you are working FT and in receipt of partial HB.

The other issue is, too, if a person is in work FT, they'll be out of the house a good part of the day, so less wear and tear.

The other is that, I'm just guessing here, when you work FT you need to sleep to keep your job and probably can't turn up drunk/on drugs, so it's less likely you'll get a tenant with anti-social behavioural issues.

We can never afford any property, but I'd never touch BTL in a million years.

So....

what if a long trerm reliable trenant you have ahd becomes in need of HB? Would you then evict them immediately (saying if mortgage / insurance were not an issue- IIRC someone on here priced it up and insurance was £125 which many HB claimants might pay themselves).....even if they did not miss a payment?

Choice over who you initially choose I understand even if I wish it were otherwise; punishing 9and it owuld be, kids could lose school aplces etc) someone who ahs done noo wrong and cost you nothing for something such as redundancy I find harder to comprehend tbh.

I ahve, btw, been a landlord.

toccatta - I think you have misunderstood, and our posts have crossed several times!

The main issue, is that people on HB are statistically more of a risk. That is why a lot of mortgages and insurance policies have restrictions on them, which makes it impossible or more expensive, for landlords to let to people receiving them.

I think there are also secondary factors, which include the fact that if you are working, then you perhaps have more to lose if you don't pay your rent. But the key point is that if you receive HB because you either don't work, or don't earn enough to cover your rent, then you pose a greater risk to the landlord's livelihood.

' HB can only be paid afte rrent is 8 weeks in arrears

That's simply not true

We had to claim for a brief while

We have neve ever missed a rent payment and when claim was processed Dh paid from his redundancy

Thankfully we were able to get sorted quickly but that was luck.

We've actually found it more difficult renting with children. A lot of 'no children' out there.

Yes it does, backtotalkaboutthis.

I cannot alter my current situation any more than a person can alter their race or gender. Why should I suffer for it?

The poor shall always be with us, somebody said, ergo, shouldn't discrimination against us be unlawful?

Disagree that its comparable.

A person may need to receive HB for a period of time, but then there circumstances could change, they could start work/increase working hours/increase their income/start a new relationship which affects income etc etc

Not suggesting those things are always easy, or happen quickly, but they are possible.

It is far more difficult to change gender, and impossible to change ethnicity.

Are you disabled then, Stuck? Or a carer?

Because those people can't alter their situation.

But your situation will change as your children age otherwise.

Your colour or gender won't.