No DSS!

almoststew1990

almoststew1990

almoststew1990

Soldato
Joined
12 May 2011
Posts
6,297
Location
Southampton
It's not normally me who starts (or contributes towards) these threads but this story really got to me.

Online property adverts 'refusing' tenants on benefits
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46137624

Thousands of online property adverts in England are discriminating against tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit, a study says.

The National Housing Federation and charity Shelter examined 86,000 online adverts for rental properties.

They found that one in 10 of those adverts requested "No DSS" or "No Housing Benefit".

While it is not unlawful to refuse people on benefits, Shelter said it was likely to contravene the Equality Act.
Click to expand...

This annoyed me (apart from nearly getting "triggered to over 9,000" by the by Equality Act only applying to the disabled and women meaning men on benefits wouldn't / might not benefit from any changes that do come forward, despite gender being irrelevant to whether your a benefit claimant or not I assume) I feel that landlords should be able to choose who they rent to; they're letting someone use their private property, and will have a mortgage etc to pay off on the property, so reliability of payment is likely to be important.

One could argue that someone on benefits (with or without income from a job) is more likely to pay, as they have a regular known income that isn't subject to a zero hours contract or being sacked, etc. Considering that this should work in their favour, there must be compelling evidence to suggest that DSS make 'worse' tenants. I can't think why Landlords would say No DSS without a reason for it?

Note the quotes about insurance being higher, and banks unwilling to lend to rental properties with benefit claimants in them. I would like to think that banks and insurance companies are somewhat unbiased given that their pricing should be based on statistical likelihood for their to be a claim, like young drivers being X times more likely to crash, and therefore pay more insurance. If benefit claimants pay more insurance, I would assume it is because they make more claims.

Finally I wonder if this is a storm in a teacup with the discrimination being "widespread" and one DSS tenant saying "No DSS is everywhere" whereas the article's research shows it is actually just 10%.

Perhaps a better solution would be rather than "BAN ALL THE BANS ON DSS" is to ask why Landlords say "no DSS" and what could be done to rectify the (perceived or actual) barrier.

I am currently a renter as well!!!!

What do you think? Should whether a (potential) tenant receives benefits be a factor in whether they are considered "suitable".
 
Here's the hard part.

The assumption is that those on DSS are more likely to be scummy does hold true, but it's not everyone.

I've seen both sides, and I think landlords should be allowed to choose with no consequences. But I also think they should be open minded - perhaps meet those that are on DSS

When my mother had to move back from Spain, she had no choice but to go on DSS, and it took her months to get a house, by which time she even had a job, simply because she was getting a housing allowance to top up the shortcomings.

Every house she has been in since has been left in better condition than she found it, and yet still struggles to find a house.

The issue is, it's a filter, albeit a broad one, and it works more often than it doesn't.

I moved into a flat recently that was being rented by a couple on benefits, and it was left in an absolute state. I've had debt collectors knocking, drug dealers, the lot.

You can totally see why landlords refuse it, even if it is unfair.
 
It came about when local authorities who provide the funds were directed to pay the tenant rsther than the landlord. This has resulted in a huge increase in unpaid rent to landlords.
We were advised many years ago not to take on subsidised tenants.
I have no idea why this was done or why it hssn't been reversed.
Andi.
 
I think you should have to meet the people who want to rent your house and decide for yourself if they are the sort you want living in your property. Before we met our current landlord we met a few who I decided as a tenant I wanted nothing to do with them due to the way they acted. Should be likewise for landlords and they should decide.
 
It could be from past experience, would you let your lovely flat with all mod cons to any old person, holes in wall, bathroom floor rotten, stains all over, smashed this and that, etc
 
Something has to be done about it. It will get to the point where people on housing benefit will have absolutely nowhere to live. We don’t want to end up with housing benefit hostels or something similar.

There should definitely be special measures for people on support group ESA or mid or high rates of PIP.
 
A lot of buy to let mortgages specifically say this now so it's often not just down to the landlord.

It's another one of the unintended consequences of the buy to let tax changes. The rental market is knackered now. Tighter margins, higher affordability multiples and picky lenders means less properties to let so it's even harder for those on housing benefit to find somewhere to live.
 
almoststew1990 said:
What do you think? Should whether a (potential) tenant receives benefits be a factor in whether they are considered "suitable".
Click to expand...
Yes, because like it or not, the fact remains that tenants on DSS are more likely to be a problem and cause property damage than those who are not.

It's similar to how some insurance companies refuse to insure a 17 year old with 0 no claims on his Evo, sucks for the guy who can't get insured but there is a legitimate reason for them refusing.
 
ubersonic said:
Yes, because like it or not, the fact remains that tenants on DSS are more likely to be a problem and cause property damage than those who are not.

It's similar to how some insurance companies refuse to insure a 17 year old with 0 no claims on his Evo, sucks for the guy who can't get insured but there is a legitimate reason for them refusing.
Click to expand...
Bit of a difference between the need for a car and a safe home.
 
andicole0 said:
It came about when local authorities who provide the funds were directed to pay the tenant rsther than the landlord. This has resulted in a huge increase in unpaid rent to landlords.
Click to expand...

As above.

Yes, it's completely unfair to tarnish all benefit claimants with the same brush, but unfortunately landlords just don't want to take the risk anymore. You can watch a number of episodes of can't pay we'll take it away, where numerous landlords have had problems trying to get rent money from benefit claimants.

The only way around i can see it is if the claimant can request the council pay the money direct to the landlord.

I think half the problem is also when claimants have to "top-up" the councils contribution, so it's always a risk of the rent being short.
 
I think it's wrong to just flat out reject people on benefits without even seeing if they're suitable, I also think the property owners should get to decide who lives in their property
 
Their figures are low as well. One in ten? Round my way it’s more like 9 in ten who state no DSS. It’s ridiculously unfair. People who have been brought up here and have their entire lives here are being forced out as their only hope are the housing associations, as they don’t have nearly enough stock. It’s gonna be a major crisis before long.
 
almoststew1990 said:
One could argue that someone on benefits (with or without income from a job) is more likely to pay, as they have a regular known income that isn't subject to a zero hours contract or being sacked, etc. Considering that this should work in their favour, there must be compelling evidence to suggest that DSS make 'worse' tenants. I can't think why Landlords would say No DSS without a reason for it?
Click to expand...

Surely you're not that naive?

If there hadn't been a single case of a benefit claimant not paying their rent with the money given to them, then i'd agree with your question.

For anyone who's renting without any assistance, there's either a guarantor the landlord could go after for non-payment, or if you earn enough that you don't need a guarantor, you'd generally have assets or cash that the courts could order you to pay towards the landlord for lack of rent.
 
@Semple no, I am not that naive given the overall tone of my post. I was presenting some balance to the argument and highlighting that benefits could present more stable income than a 0 hour job.

You mention guarantor as a way non benefit tenants can provide rent and is therefore a "good thing" about having non dss tenants. However I'd consider this largely irrelevant as no Landlord will want to have to go as far as doing this, and if they have to then the tenant is clearly not paying rent on time anyway!? Also, I would imagine there are similar mechanisms for landlords to extract rent from dss tenants too.
 
it annoys me that third parties can stick their oars in and dictate who you should allow in your property. if you own it you should have the right to refuse whoever you want. the management reserves the right to refuse admittance...
 
robfosters said:
Their figures are low as well. One in ten? Round my way it’s more like 9 in ten who state no DSS. It’s ridiculously unfair. People who have been brought up here and have their entire lives here are being forced out as their only hope are the housing associations, as they don’t have nearly enough stock. It’s gonna be a major crisis before long.
Click to expand...
Oh woe is them, that their free housing is outside of an area most working people can't afford to live in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom