‘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.

750 quid for a tiny single room in an infested house in zone 5 is not the market rent, even for London. Charging this for 4 rooms, for a house brought decades ago and needs renovation...this is not what the landlord needs to break even. This is shameless exploitation.

LLs should rent to benefit claimants at fair rates and a habitable standard.

Realistically if I was a landlord, mortgage and insurance allowing, I would rent to people on housing benefit either if the HB came directly to me, or if they also had work. I might have second thoughts renting to someone wholly reliant on UC which includes HB - not because I don't trust them - but because its often not enough to live on, and chunks of it come out in debt or sanctions.

I don't buy this landlords being caught up in "benefit fraud thing" (a really tiny phenomenon anyway). They wouldn't be asked for rent back unless they were involved in the fraud. The case I've heard of is where the LL has been taking the full HB amount for the property from a claimant, but also taking money from people who shouldn't be living there. So the LL is clearly involved.

Harolds How do you jump to the conclusion that I don't charge market rents?

If the outgoings to maintain a home are £500 a month the rent needs to be at least that amount otherwise I'll find an alternative use for the asset. If someone can't afford £500 for rent they have an income problem which is why HB exists.

HAs are the worst for charging the maximum rents to claim HB. Your ire is directed at private LLs when it should start with HAs who are notorious for not maintaining their properties and charging max rents.

HA properties are typically priced, on a national average figure, 33% lower than the private sector equivalent. As for you, you have stated that none of your tenants can afford the rent you charge, so clearly you are not charging according to your available market. You sub the difference between what you charge and what they can pay with money that the government ie taxpayers including me gives you. Your gratitude is appreciated.

It makes no sense to criticize landlords both for not accepting tenants on benefits and for taking money from the state, it surely has to be one or the other?

We have just been given our notice, the original plan was for to stay in this house for another 3-5 years.

That hasn't happened, our lives have been a complete cluster fuck for a year now, I am disabled, we have had PIP stopped, ESA stopped HB stopped in 2017, after over a year I have finally been given a date for PIP tribunal.

Not only am I on benefits (partner works full time) we have a child, which some landlords don't accept and also 3 pets. One estate agent has already said we need someone who earns over 30k a year. In 2 months there is a strong chance we are going to be homeless.

We can't move out the area because my partner has his eldest, we are screwed unless we manage to find a private landlord that will accept us without a guarantor, will accept benefits, child and pets. Its a massive tall order, the only thing is I am luckier than most and hopefully will recover (mental health issues) so can get off fucking benefits

yes, but that is logic and this is mn....

harolds That would be because they are low income, disabled or work PT hours. Their earned income means they can't afford housing. They rely on benefits to cover their living expenses including their housing costs.

The trouble with demonising landlords is that many will simply divest and leave the sector. And that is what seems to be happening. Things like licensing and the often contrary rules on things like access to property make it all hard work and not worth the effort.

Great for first time buyers, as the pool of available properties then increases. But not great for tenants. Higher demand for rental property plus increased costs (I reckon that the new licensing requirement for a property that already had the fire doors, alarms, Gas safe, new circuit board etc, cost me around £3,000 - and that is before my time is factored in) will mean higher rents and more risk adverse landlords. Throwing sub-prime tenants into the hands of unregulated landlords. That is what happens when policy makers don’t understand economics.

@Need

But tenants become first time buyers! (Assuming they manage to get a deposit together after paying crazy rent).

I'm in the process (touch wood ) of buying my first house that has been used for BTL. I don't think I would have managed to buy it at an affordable price for me if there had been as much competition from BTL landlords as there was.

And in my situation I might have struggled to rent the same property I'm buying due to inflated rents and discrimination against tenants - as shown in this thread.

I don't think landlords should be demonised - I know quite a few "accidental" ones. But being able to keep hold of a (often second) property you don't live in is a luxury, and I don't think LLs should expect to make much of a profit after their mortgage is being paid off and their costs are covered by a tenant.

@sobeyond

That sounds like an awful situation - have you ask help from the council?

Sure. But there are people who will never buy. Including people of benefits, which is what this thread is about.

namechange most accidental lanlords, being expats we know quite a few, don't make significant profits after paying off mortgage and expenses, which is why if the balance between rights and responsibilities gets too skewed they properties just wouldn't be rented out. If you did make significant profits, say you had no mortgage to pay, you would pay tax on it.

@namechangeaskingprice

Yes but the chances of us getting any help in 2 months is probably not going to happen, but you never know. I have my fingers crossed

I think the taxation and law changes are good for the housing market I have friends who had several flats all with high mortgages and they have had to sell them all bar one as without the tax break it wasn't viable. That's five flats back on the market at the same price they paid two years ago. That's great for FTB not so great for their tenants but in the long run it's good to stop that BTL frenzy it increased both prices and rent.

@Need

Actually plenty of people on tax credits - soon to be classed as benefits under UC - have no problem getting mortgages and buying. So the LLs on here refusing to rent to them is crazy.

If you can't afford a BTL without a tax break, than you shouldn't get a BTL. It seems as if the new laws affect mainly upper-rate tax paying landlords with large high-interest mortgages. Not sure how many "accidental landlords" would come under that category, but this is prob a small minority of LLs.

Yes, and lots of help to buy schemes aimed at people like nurses, but traditional DSS, wholly reliant on benefits will struggle.

And will struggle more if the pool of available rental property continues to dry up.

It depends on who is the priority. Without capital from BTL investors being invested in the property market it is likely that construction will slow, so overall less new stock to meet current demand.

But presumably everyone is happy as landlords have been punished, even if the most desperate tenants who eventually suffer.

My private landlords does not maintain our property and charges the max amount of rent for housing benefit.

The HB is paid directly to his account, and there have been a few times when he has had to pay money back to the council due to overpayment (but, I don't see why that's an issue seen as it's an OVERpayment, so you don't lose any money).

My landlord moved me from one bedsit to another in the same building. But did not give me a new tenancy agreement for the new bedsit (he simply moved the deposit from previous flat to new one etc). So my HB got stopped because he wouldn't provide me a tenancy to show to council, so we ended up with our deposit being taken for rent arrears (1k deposit btw!), and having to borrow money from family to pay our council tax arrears, since without a tenancy agreement I couldn't get HB which meant I also couldn't claim CT Reduction, so got whacked with full bill. Hundreds of pounds. All due to shitty landlord.

did the deposit scheme approve this?

how are the legals on this prooerty?

did the deposit scheme approve this?

AFAIK. The new place, he basically signed off with a different business name when contacting the council about me and they asked him to provide proof it was still him to prevent fraud etc, or a new tenancy (would not provide any of this so claim was stopped). We told him claim was stopped due to this, but he still didn't. Yet he still was expecting rent as we were living there so he claimed the deposit. By the time he claimed he had moved us AGAIN to 3rd property in another area London (council inspected property and told him it needed work done so we had to leave), and the letter for us to appeal the decision on the deposit was sent to the old property!! Even though we had moved again. He didn't tell them so we couldn't contest it - by the time we got the letter it was too late.

I had to go to court about the CT and explain I'm on benefits etc and an eligible for Reduction benefit or whatever, but just because I couldn't claim HB due to the landlord at the time, that was stopped. They basically said that's the way the system works and it's not their issue. I said how is it fair I'm getting hundreds of pounds that I can't afford in council tax debt just due to my landlord not cooperating with the LA? Still had to pay it.

I know we shouldn't have moved into the 2nd property without a new tenancy but I was basically in a glorified box room and heavily pregnant and a slightly bigger one became available when someone moved, he said move your stuff in.

Uyulala you should have appealed the hb decision. It isn't mandatory to provide a TA just evidence the agreement existed, which you would have been able to do to a tribunal through bank statements, witness statement etc.

namechangeaskingprice actually, thankfully a landlord can choose, within the law, to whom they rent their property. If they couldn't, there would be a huge exodus due to the increased risk.

I will not under any circumstances rent to people on UC or HB. If there is an overpayment, due to the tenant committing fraud, or failing to provide info to the LA which is the usual issue, the ll can be out of pocket by thousands of pounds (around 8k) by the time the possession proceedings have been exhausted. It's about minimising risk.

Uyulala you should have appealed the hb decision

I did speak to them, it wasn't just about "no tenancy" - it was the fact that landlord wrote to them using a different name or business name etc and they asked him to clarify his identity etc and he did not. So they refused to pay in case of fraud. I asked what I could do and they said nothing as it was info they requested from landlord, not me. I spent hours on the phone trying to sort it out, going between the LA and the landlord. And I would have no proof on my bank statements - HB was paid directly from LA to him.