Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

"No DSS" unlawful.

43 replies

DGRossetti · 26/02/2018 12:07

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42979242

The thousands of lettings agents and landlords around the country who reject housing benefit claimants could be flouting equality laws, due a recent legal case.

The widespread practice has led to "no-go zones" for those on lower incomes - especially in desirable residential areas.

But single mother Rosie Keogh won compensation for sex discrimination from a lettings agency that refused to consider her as a tenant because she was on state benefit.

The cleaner and former paralegal successfully argued that blanket bans on benefit claimants indirectly discriminated against women, especially single women.

^This is because they are proportionately more likely to be claiming housing benefit than single men, according to official figures.
Rosie's attempt to rent a property in a smart area of Birmingham in May 2016 was blocked when the lettings agent found she would pay some of the rent via housing benefit.^

(contd).

OP posts:
dreamingofsun · 13/03/2018 20:52

the other issue with HB is that if someone doesnt have a good income then you have no way of doing an attachment to earnings order. So if they dont pay rent for 4 months and trash the place you have no way of covering your costs. I would have been better off leaving the place empty for a year than letting it to the current tenant. It will take me 6 months to remove her as she is making me take her right through the legal process which so far has cost us 1.5k and we are only 3/4 of the way through.

so keen on HB no. I know you arent all like that and i also know that not all top earners are decent people....but at least i can get money back from the latter

chirpyburbycheapsheep · 27/03/2018 11:45

Ellie - Until this is sorted out we will never let to anyone on housing benefit.

Not to anyone? What about someone with a perfect credit score, who is good enough with money to have some savings so can afford the deposit, rent in advance etc, who has a reference from their previous landlord stating that they have never missed a rental payment in 10 years and also had a guarantor? Oh and is disabled and needs to be in their local area to access treatment and HB is their only possible means of getting a place to live due to there being no social housing locally.

That would be me and I was still turned down. I welcome this as it was discrimination pure and simple.

Also it has been consistently shown that only around 1% of people on benefits are diddling the system. Anyone can do a 'midnight flit', it's not something genetically wired purely into those on benefits.

chirpyburbycheapsheep · 27/03/2018 11:54

dreaming - 'I know you arent all like that'

That's good because otherwise you would have fallen into the trap of association fallacy which is one of the ways in which whole portions of society get demonized and dehumanised so it is easier to discriminate against them.

Having said that I do have sympathy for your situation.

FlossyMittens · 02/04/2018 00:10

Council Directive 2004/113/EC implemented the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services. This was transposed into the Equality Act 2010.

Water, gas, electricity and telecommunications services do not indirectly discriminate. The private rented sector, including the insurance and banking sectors need to understand that they cannot continue to operate this practice which indirectly discriminates against women.

Chirpyburbycheapsheep - I have often wondered if those in the private rented sector possess a conscience? I wonder if they ever stop to think that maybe their actions are contributing to this dreadful housing crisis?

dreamingofsun · 03/04/2018 14:04

one potential way to improve the outcomes for people on HB might be to do what they are doing in scotland. apparently this makes it much cheaper and quicker to remove bad tenants.

if anyone trashing a property and not paying rent could be removed much more quickly then LLs wouldnt be quite so concerned about a tenants wider financial situation and the ability to do attachment orders - just their ability to pay the rent. this would help all good tenants who at the moment may be suffering due to a limited number of bad apples

Xenia · 10/04/2018 22:01

"The owners of 90% of private rental properties with mortgages are banned from letting people on housing benefits use them..and two thirds of the largest lenders prohibit it".

So if you are a landlord you could lose the property and your life's savings in it if you let to benefits claimants. That is too big a risk for most landlords in the hope that the law will come to their rescue. Instead if the courts have said it is illegal then let the lenders be forced to issue new mortgage deeds and only when they are signed up then take the risk if you live in an area where benefits are enough to pay landlord mortgage costs (which is not most areas so it is not relevant in many areas).

Due to the changes in taxation of rents a lot of landlords are selling up anyway so it may become less of an issue as we revert to a situation where there is much less private property to rent.

DGRossetti · 11/04/2018 14:39

.

OP posts:
GeorgieTheGorgeousGoat · 11/04/2018 14:48

I think it’s about time.

I’m a childminder, could you imagine if I didn’t look after children whose parents rely on benefits to pay me?!

Xenia · 11/04/2018 22:01

But if a parent does not pay (and in some nurseries even if you are just 5 minutes late) immediate pensalties are due and if payment is even a few days late the service stops immediately. If the tenants don't pay the owner loses their home to their building society, their life savings and have to spend thousands and take 3 months to evict a tenant and even then will not get their money in most cases so it's not quite the same as a child minding situation or even just a normal customer who might not pay me for the services I provide in which case I immediately stop supplying.

dreamingofsun · 12/04/2018 20:28

xenia - 3 months to evict a tenant....in your dreams, more like 8 and all the time they dont pay rent and are trashing the place and upsetting the neightbours. And if they dont have a job you are unlikely to get any money back....so quite a different situation to childminders

Xenia · 12/04/2018 21:36

One reason we sold up - not that we ever had any hassle but I did not want the risk and there was no profit in it anyway.

JustPutSomeGlitterOnIt · 12/04/2018 21:44

About blinking time. I've been in disbelief for years that this is legal.

If the terms of the insurance or mortgage prohibit letting to people who are in receipt of benefits then what are they supposed to do?

The insurance companies need to change their terms.
To some which aren't patently discriminatory.

FlossyMittens · 14/04/2018 23:49

Xenia - your facts are wrong. If you listen to BBC Radio 4 You and Yours - 7 March 2018, you will hear that the largest mortgage lender for buy to let landlords, Paragon, does not impose 'no DSS' conditions.

The programme also goes on to to inform us that over half of all lenders in the market do not impose 'no DSS' conditions on buy to let landlords.

FlossyMittens · 14/04/2018 23:58

Dreamingofsun - those of us in receipt of housing benefit are not all incapable of paying our rent on time each month. Nor, do we all 'trash' our homes or annoy our neighbours. We have more important things to care about such as going out to work and looking after our children.

FlossyMittens · 15/04/2018 00:11

Those who wish to keep putting forward their own 'facts' would be well advised to read this - 'Parliamentary Briefing Paper - House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number 7008 29 March 2018 - Can private landlords refuse to let to Housing Benefit Claimants?'

It is all in here.

Queenofthedrivensnow · 15/04/2018 00:45

I'm pretty surprised to hear about anything being a condition of the mortgage.....news to me and I've been a landlord before.

Xenia · 15/04/2018 10:12

Flossy says it is 50% of BTL loans (although I am not sure if that is 50% of new loans or applies to those that might have been issued 10 years ago) so that is a vast number of landlords who are not allowed to let to benefits claimants otherwise they breach the law and lose their property. So I don't think we can dismiss that issue as irrelevant. If a landlord dismissed health and safety law as irrelevant we would be all over him or her. If the ruling means the courts have said the terms in mortgage deeds are illegal then the mortgage lenders will need to reissue their loan documentation for signature to the 50% of borrowers with those loans - a massive exercised and after that when tenancies come up for renewal landlords will be free then and only then to let to benefits claimants.

Just out of curiosity I just now went off to check the terms in my daughter's buy to let loan from just last year (2017). It says

"Letting of the Property - As this property will be let, the following additional conditions will apply: The following are not
acceptable: - - occupation by the borrower(s) or any member of their family; - tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit; - Local
Authority tenants; - tenants who have or will acquire diplomatic immunity; - tenants that are limited companies; - multiple
tenancies (including Houses in Multiple Occupation)."

She has let to two teachers for 2 years so given their salaries and the fact there are 2 in full time work without children I think it unlikely they would get housing benefit given the not particularly high level of the rent for London.

dreamingofsun · 17/04/2018 16:36

xenia - i wonder what happens if someone loses their job part way through a contract. The LL couldnt just evict them and the tenant would be unlikely to have enough money to pay the rent (or live on) unless they went on benefits.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page