Pros and cons of renting to a full time Carer and her disabled child

thelawnet

lukekelly wrote: »

It would certainly not be illegal and its morality at most is a matter for debate. Equality here is to consider applications from possible tenants solely on the analysis of possible financial outcomes and allow no consideration of other factors. If a property isn't rented to the tenant offering the highest (risk-adjusted) return to the landlord then there is discrimination. If not then there is none.

And what risk is there supposed to be?

The OP is saying s/he doesn't want to let to (a) a disabled person (illegal) or (b) a person in receipt of benefits (which amounts to indirect discrimination as already explained).

You might as well say that you're not going to give a job to a woman because they might get pregnant - that's just as illegal.

thelawnet

socrates wrote: »

Not true - there are many many ads for rental properties that clearly state - DSS not accepted.

There were also not so long ago many ads for rental properties saying 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish'.

If it was illegal there would be thousands of court cases ongoing as we speak.

Why? If I were a benefits claimant looking for a house and it said no DSS, I'd still explain my case and hopefully they'd be sympathetic. If not, then I'd probably move on.

As I said, it's a discriminatory policy:

http://www.newsmedianews.com/no-dss.php

space_rider

Well I`ve been a full time carer of a child claiming disability living allowance carers allowance and income support. If her childs disability is such that they won`t get better then at least their income is recession proof. Depending on the disablity there will be less chance the child is going to wreck the place and like others have pointed out you won`t have the worry of them leaving and you having an empty property.

If you are considering selling the house in a year I would think carefully about allowing them to rent it. It is very disturbing for a child never mind disabled child having to move. I moved twice in a year because we rented for 6 months and my daughter found it quite distressing.

socrates

thelawnet wrote: »

There were also not so long ago many ads for rental properties saying 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish'.



Why? If I were a benefits claimant looking for a house and it said no DSS, I'd still explain my case and hopefully they'd be sympathetic. If not, then I'd probably move on.

As I said, it's a discriminatory policy:

http://www.newsmedianews.com/no-dss.php

Whatever the rights and wrongs are it exists and it happens.

As a LL I am more than within my rights not to accept claimants of benefits - especially with the STUPID laws this govt has put in place.

Saying that I have a mixture of both private and LHA tenants - and on the whole my benefit tenants have been a lot less hassle - but as I said before - I take as I see.

shirlgirl2004

Was the OP not seeing the disabled child as a positive thing in terms of renting to the mother? I read it as the OP thinks that as the mother has a child to look after she won't be having wild parties and rather than being a layabout is a hardworking mother caring for her child. I think the OP is looking at positive discrimination.

icebergx

Look, this is just stupid.
I have no problem with the child having a disability. I wanted to know the 'pros and cons' as I would like long-term, stable, tenants who are most likely to pay the rent, cause as little damage as possible and who I can have an open honest relationship with.

And as far as my naivety goes, I think it's naive to suggest that all full-time carers and their disabled children/partners are bad 'types of tenants'. Socrates, If you had a disabled child and chose or had to look after him/her full time, would that make you a bad tenant? Sometimes people are unfortunate with the hands they are dealt, it doesn't make them bad people.
I know a very successful landlord with over 100 properties in London who only rents to Housing Benefit tenants so it can work financially too.

In the end, the lady saw the house today and made a low offer but is unable to start her tenancy for 7 weeks and doesn't have a UK based guarantor. I decided not to go with her but it wouldn't put me of going for someone in similar situation who did meet this criteria.

socrates

icebergx wrote: »

Look, this is just stupid.
I have no problem with the child having a disability. I wanted to know the 'pros and cons' as I would like long-term, stable, tenants who are most likely to pay the rent, cause as little damage as possible and who I can have an open honest relationship with.

And as far as my naivety goes, I think it's naive to suggest that all full-time carers and their disabled children/partners are bad 'types of tenants'. Socrates, If you had a disabled child and chose or had to look after him/her full time, would that make you a bad tenant? Sometimes people are unfortunate with the hands they are dealt, it doesn't make them bad people.
I know a very successful landlord with over 100 properties in London who only rents to Housing Benefit tenants so it can work financially too.

In the end, the lady saw the house today and made a low offer but is unable to start her tenancy for 7 weeks and doesn't have a UK based guarantor. I decided not to go with her but it wouldn't put me of going for someone in similar situation who did meet this criteria.

Where did I say that they are bad types of tenants?

Furthermore if you have a friend who has so many properties let to tenants claiming benefits - would it not have been easier to give him a quick call?

My main and only point was - WHY do you need to pay a LA to find a tenant that you can find yourself - who are pre-vetted - with a deposit - sitting there waiting for you - all you need to do is call Brighton Council Private Sector Leasing. I also told you they have a scheme where they manage the property as you do not live in the area.

On top of that what decent agent would send a tenant that cannot move in for 7 weeks and does not have a guarantor.

I am sorry but every part of your post shows naivety - even down to the thread title.

anniecave

but haven't we got the right to ask for other people's opinions on this forum? What's going on now?

OP - hope you find a tennant that meets your criteria soon!

socrates

anniecave wrote: »

but haven't we got the right to ask for other people's opinions on this forum? What's going on now?

OP - hope you find a tennant that meets your criteria soon!

Everyone has - but when you get given perfectly good advice and then do not listen. Plus I explained them out of their ambiguous thread title. Which seemed to offend.

Well what can I say...

lukekelly_2

thelawnet wrote: »

The OP is saying s/he doesn't want to let to (a) a disabled person (illegal) or (b) a person in receipt of benefits (which amounts to indirect discrimination as already explained).

"No DSS" is not illegal as others have pointed out. Take this article by the CAB discussing the problems that those on benefits face when trying to find accommodation which clearly implicitly accepts the legality of such conditions. Or for a more serious legal discussion, the recent case of London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm. There is no concept of indirect discrimination on grounds of disability at present in UK law. Could you give a link to any serious document showing that such a criteria?

Your "indirect discrimination" argument boils down to saying that any condition on the rental of private property that correlates to a category such as race, gender or disability is discriminatory and should be made illegal. This is of course absurd as almost no condition does not correlate to some such category. Take a non-smoking condition for example. Those out of work are more likely to smoke and many ethnic minorities and those who are disabled are more likely to be out of work.

I did not claim there is any particular risk in this case, indeed from what the opening poster has said I'd guess there was a low risk of non-payment or damage to the property in this case. My point was that landlords should not compare tenants on race, gender or any other such criteria. Just on the financial return they expect to receive. Any such calculation has to be (fairly) risk adjusted.

Whilst it is not the case at present that indirect discrimination on grounds of disability is illegal under UK law it is possible that it may become the case in the future. I would strongly disagree with such a change, as I have disagreed with many other indirect discrimination laws in the UK. What I disagreed with is not the idea of equal access to services but the chosen distribution of the costs of making such equal access available. If we as a society decide that some section of the population should not have reduced access to a certain standard of rented accommodation because of costs or risks involved in housing them (it may be that DSS claimants are an example of this although I haven't seen anything certain) then that cost should be borne by society as a whole through general taxation, not through requiring landlords to judge prospective tenants on a non-commercial basis.