‘No DSS’ when renting

[ihavetogoshoppingnow]

When estate agents say no DSS does it mean anyone on benefits at all or just people who are unemployed?

I currently own a house with my now ex and I’m looking at moving out and renting untill our house sells and I can buy on my own. I work full time but will be entitled to tax credits and housing benefit.

Do you children, OP? Because the other barrier you might find is landlords who won't rent to people with children. Yes, it's a thing! And entirely legal. Can your ex rent more easily than you (doesn't need housing benefit)? If so would he be willing to move out until the house sells? As you can see, private renting whilst in receipt of even partial housing benefit can be very, very hard.

What I don't understand about this is that I could earn enough money to cover the rent, but could lose my job tomorrow - then what? At least if I was on housing benefit either in full or partial you would still be getting that percentage paid.

@CantankerousCamel you can depending on the circumstances. It's a long winded process though with lots of checks (I technically own a house because my dick head ex refuses to sell/buy me out as likes to control me) i receives nothing from the property financially. In these circumstances I have been in receipt of housing benefit but I don't think you can just go and get it for the fun of it whilst still owning no

It's not always the landlords who put in restrictions like that. I've found letting agents are the ones who usually cause the problems. Landlords pay a letting agent to find tenants and manage the let - so letting agents are going to bear some responsibility if things go wrong, hence they may be more harsh than necessary, especially if there is no shortage of prospective tenants - they'll go for the easier/safer kind of tenant.

I could earn enough money to cover the rent, but could lose my job tomorrow - then what? At least if I was on housing benefit either in full or partial you would still be getting that percentage paid.

The problem is that it’s all a matter of statistics and risk. If you are working and have passed all the relevant credit checks, then you are likely to still pay the rent should you lose your job. You will prioritise paying the rent over other expenses because you know how it will screw up your credit score if you don’t. Likewise, you are statistically likely to get another job before rent arrears pile up.

Someone in receipt of full benefits can very quickly lose them. An ESA recipient can suddenly be found fit for work and their benefits greatly reduced. Likewise PIP can be suddenly stopped which can mean someone is susddenly worse off to the tune of £130 a week (plus disability premiums on ESA). Someone who’s income has suddenly dropped to nothing may not prioritise paying their rent when they have no food in the house.

These ‘statistical’ likelihood’s never take account of individuals. Just as there are very sensible 17 year-old drivers, the idiots that cost insurance companies tens of thousands ruin it for everyone else.

Amilongsigater, no HB would stop if you lose your job as you would need to be reassessed to see what benefits you were claiming, therefore no money would be paid and this could be for weeks

I thought it only meant no housing benefit - if it includes tax credits that's insane.

They should change it back so housing benefit money goes straight to landlords

I thought it only meant no housing benefit - if it includes tax credits that's insane.

I've seen it include any benefit at all. Depends on the agent or landlord.

They should change it back so housing benefit money goes straight to landlords

That won't help. If someone has been claiming fraudulently they'll chase the landlord for the money back like they used to. Landlords won't touch housing benefit tenants then.

They should change it back so housing benefit money goes straight to landlords

They've done the opposite with UC, which is a complete shitstorm.

Ah I would have thought it would encourage LLs to take benefit claimants if LLs would get the money direct.

They'd get the money direct but then overpayment or fraudulent claims would be taken off them directly too. At least the way it is now it's the tenants who have to pay any money back.

Yes, renting is a minefield. I've rented in the UK for fifteen years and have a 8 year old and 6 year old. They are well behaved and don't destroy property. I have never had a single deduction from our deposit in that time, both myself and my husband work and can provide references (been with current employer +10 years),can provide rental references but a significant amount of three bed homes have 'no children' restriction. So I watched with amusement as they would take forever to let, and often the advert re-appeared after a few weeks.
And the price (we would have paid) goes down. Karma :).

Complete sympathy for benefits...I found it painful renting without benefits, couldn't imagine with benefits. It was the first question every letting agent asked...

direct payment from council to private landlord is a rare thing now - and also very risky because if the council decides the claim is fraudulent they will go after the landlord. To take this you need to be a big multi-property landlord able to absorb these possible costs.

They also do that with council tax in the scenario where the tenant leaves tells the council but doesn't tell the landlord. The landlord then has to go through the eviction procedure to avoid being done for illegal eviction. This takes months during which the landlord cannot access the property, has no rent and then has to pay the council tax.

The landlord will have the money and will be easy to find. What else would the council do?

now why do you think there could possibly be a reluctance for landlords to take certain tenants given all this?

Our insurance asks every year if our tenants are in full time employment, never thought to ask why.

Full time employment is no guarantee though - two thirds of Housing Benefit recipients are working. Housing Benefit is primarily not an unemployment benefit but a top up benefit necessitated by rents outstripping incomes. As those rents are set by landlords, it is rich indeed that they stipulate their tenants don't claim it.

@amilosingitor

If you lost your job and didn't pay the rent then a) I'd start the process to end tenancy/evict and b) my landlord insurance would cover the missing rent (after a period of time - not immediately).

If you were in receipt of benefits then the insurance would not pay out to the landlord.

I'm skeptical about this councils taking money back from landlords thing. Officially they say they only do that if they suspect the landlord has also committed fraud, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.

IME it means no Housing Benefit (and that the writer of the ad is too bloody lazy to bother to look up the correct terms, given that the DSS hasn't existed since 2001- not something that would instil much confidence in me as a potential tenant).

It's awful, tbh, and I don't think insurance companies/ mortgage providers should be allowed to bar landlords renting to people in receipt of benefit.

There are too many risks with DSS claimants. Their benefits could be cut. They could decide to pocket the housing benefit and not pay the rent. And some of them are likely to be dodgy long term unemployed types, and they all get tarred with the same brush. If a landlord has the alternative of renting to a salaried professional then they're likely to choose that.

believe me my council were after me with unheard of speed for missing council tax. Fortunately it was only a few quid, because given the penalty for not paying there really is no choice.

I was interested to read that one of the councillors had been done for not paying council tax. On investigation, that too was a case of a disappearing tenant leaving a liability and the council going after the landlord. He challenged it but to no avail, and given you can end up in prison for this he paid up.

as property rental is a business, and business is all about risk mitigation, the effect of this is obvious.

Officially they say they only do that if they suspect the landlord has also committed fraud, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.

It's because they assume that a landlord will know who is living in their property so, for example, if someone living with a partner claims housing benefit as a single parent, they'd say the landlord knew (because they are expected to know who lives there) and was part of the fraud being committed.

It's more tricky if the fraud is based on lying about work etc but very easy for a landlord to get caught up in a single parent fraud.

WerkSupp yes I have 2 DC luckily I’ve only seen one place so far that wanted ‘professionals only’ DP could rent more easily but wont be doesn’t want us to split so as it’s me that wants to hes said it’s me that can move or stay till we sell or buy him out.

My area has already moved over to universal credit which I can now see will make things even worse as it’s just a blanket benefit, hopefully I can get away with applying off Just my wage and then will claim once I’ve moved in.

It seems absolute madness to me as when I’ve spoken to my mortgage company they will accept a % of universal credit as income towards a mortgage but landlords won’t 🤷🏼‍♀️

Oh, landlords wouldn't touch UC with a barge pole. I'd just stick with trying to live together till the house sells.