‘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.

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.

We had an overpayment at one point it was an LA mistake. They simple asked our landlord for it back and seen as it was money not yet owed, I don't see how that loses you rent money. Our landlord just paid it back, and the rent back to normal.

If it's due to tenant fraud then of course there's more of an issue

Uyulala the decision refusing benefit is appealable.

@SingularityX

It's pretty shocking isn't it but what people don't mention is that disabled people are protected in law. They must not be discriminated against in this way.

Any landlord who refuses to consider an application from a disabled applicant, outright, because they're on disability benefit needs to be extremely careful because if that tenant decides to sue them, they could win.

Frankly this needs to happen to ensure the practice gets stamped out and the nice thing is that although housing is technically no longer covered, disabled people still have access to full legal aid on grounds of discrimination.

not sure why you've awoken this zombie - but the problem with taking tenants on benefits is an insurance one. Feel free to join Shelter in their campaign to ensure that insurers and buy to let mortgage providers allow this. And that eviction for non payment and trashing (which of course is not just caused by benefits tenants) is quicker than six months to a year which might make landlords less risk averse.

They get the first part but not the second.

@WerkSupp

"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. "

It's not legal actually, it's indirect age discrimination protected in the Equality Act 2010.

Landlords need to be properly trained so they understand their responsibilities.

I would wager for example that very few of these so called 'accidental landlords' have even read the terms of their mortgage agreement, so it seems unlikely that mortgage terms are the problem.

A very strong indicator of this is the sheer number of people who let property on residential mortgages, without realising, or even caring they're breaking the terms of their mortgage and commiting fraud without the agreement of their mortgage provider.

As is of course the fact so few seem to understand their legal responsibilities.

no such thing as an 'accidental landlord'.

yes, people do what you say. Don't forget all the wreckers/dealers/stealers who are tenants. And all the tenants who have NO CLUE about their legal rights because they CBA to read the how to rent guide or do even a teeny bit of research, or believe the propaganda that all landlords are Rachmann who has been dead 60 plus years.

Or is that too balanced for MN which is basically an 'I hate landlords because I am jealous' site?

I disagree that the is no such thing as an accidental landlord, although I would phase it's as unintentional landlords.
My dp died and left me a rental property with life-long tenants.
My db couldn't sell his flat because the free-holder would extend his lease, so db bought his new flat without selling the old one.
Neither of the properties make us any money , after tax & expenses, but we are both stuck with the situation for the time being.
Touch wood we have had good tenants in general and hopefully we've been good landlords offering a stable and secure tenancy.

It might be your mortgage term which says no benefits....but your landlord insurance company - mine won't accept people on benefits.

There might be landlord insurance companies which do offer this...I wonder how much the premium would be increased by?

I think it's really unfair, but I assume mortgage companies/insurance companies see the bigger picture/bigger risk?

I have rented to a tenant on benefits before (and allowed pets) and it didn't end well, just one example, but I did try!
Now my landlord insurance won't let me.

fastliving sorry for your loss - and sounds like you have rent-act tenants, didn't know there were still any of those! In that case apologies, you are stuck with them.

the other place - I'm no expert but it seems there is now an automatic right to extend leases. It will cost but it will at least let your brother get rid of the place eventually. Section 21 will go fairly soon if this is England and that will make landlording much riskier.

This focus on removal of Section 21 is unhelpful as it's likely that it will also become easier for landlords to evict tenants who are in rent arrears or causing antisocial behaviour.

It's not like it's impossible to evict in these circumstances at the moment as Section 8 provides that facility, albeit the process needs to be speeded up.

I think we should look to the continent where very few countries operate a policy of no-fault eviction and have very successful private rented sectors, most notably Germany and also Denmark. IMHO tenants should be able to view their place as a home and it's difficult to see how that's possible when the place can be taken away from them so easily, regardless of whether they're good tenants or not.

I should add the inherent insecurity that is embodied in Section 21 can have very real life consequences. It can for example make people unable to settle down properly, have kids and start a family.

I'd argue it also causes people in social housing to become extremely reluctant to move, even when opportunities become available elsewhere. It certainly has an effect on social mobility when such people sink into the well of the sink-estate.

the government pay to the tenant the government pay in arrears the government assess monthly income & if the recipient is paid 4 weekly & therefore receives 2 payments in one month even though they may land up receiving less the next month may loose their hb universal benefit for the next month because they are seen as having too much money & there will be a delay in them getting it reinstated. Unfortunately some tenants don't consider rent as being an essential or priority - note I said some not all. whether it is a private or social landlord rent needs to be paid even people in communist or socialist countries pay rent. I read an article in a housing magazine (inside housing I think) which stated that arrears in social housing have increased massively since the start of UC from memory I think it was previously 95% of people who were up to date now its less than 80% - On top of this landlord insurance place restrictions on landlords having tenants with uc as well as mortgage providers. Get the government to change their system things might change & landlords might be more amenable to taking people on benefits.

You've missed the part which says that there are people which you must not refuse accommodation just because they're on benefits.

The law is pretty clear now that this is illegal. Yes the government needs to legislate to prevent mortgage companies and insurance companies from placing the terms you describe into contracts but that does not mean you can forgo your legal responsibilities as a landlord.

I'm pleased to say there's been a bit of movement on this issue recently.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-51642316

no there hasn't....this judgement does not change the practices of the mortgage and insurance companies. Shelter propaganda which the BBC has swallowed.

Of course it changes things. Everyone that reads that will be confident of winning in court if they challenge decisions like these by landlords or agents.

It's nice to see but also don't ever think that these grovelling apologies the landlords (or agents in this case) are genuine. Without the brave everyday people and reputable organisations like Shelter stepping in they'd just continue discriminating against people.

The Equality Act and the DDA before was always there to protect people from discrimination, it's good that finally it's actually beginning to be applied to these cases. This discrimination needs to stop and people like you menchen need to understand that it is not acceptable and it will not be tolerated any longer.

Hard of reading. I don't discriminate unless my insurers do. It's called business, you should try it sometime.

usual jealous, kneejerk, student politics reaction of someone who has swallowed the anti-landlord propaganda.

and BTW the name is 'mencken'. It's a reference to the stupidity of the public. Look it up.