Renting to D.S.S. not in contracts?

summerstreetallotments

..Hello, ...Does anyone know if it's true that most buy-to-let landlords cannot let to people on benefits because there is a clause in their contracts(signed when they purchased) that prohibits this. Was told that this was discussed on the radio the other day but missed it. Around here it's virtually impossible to get housing if you're not working...I'm wondering if this sort of clause (if it does exist ) is legal as it could maybe contravene the Human rights act...right to a home etc. etc.
I always though landlords put no D.S.S. on their adverts as they were dodging tax or something...
thanks x

PasturesNew

Well, you could say that about anything. No pets, no smokers, no children.

But yes, a lot of mortgages exclude LLs from renting to people on DSS. That's because, statistically, they're a greater risk for [a] not paying not keeping an orderly house.

BitterAndTwisted

Especially these days where LHA (Local Housing Allowance) is paid direct to the tenant. Therefore the landlord has no guarantee that although the tenant is receiving the money they will pay it over to the landlord

Wee_Willy_Harris

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Especially these days where LHA (Local Housing Allowance) is paid direct to the tenant. Therefore the landlord has no guarantee that although the tenant is receiving the money they will pay it over to the landlord

A bit like those working and not claiming LHA, who get their wages direct to the tenant. They could equally choose to not pay their rent. Of course, a landlord can't just get an attachment to earnings after 2 months with those not claiming, but they can get LHA paid direct to landlord when 2 months rent is due.

clutton_2

a LL can get an attachment to benefit for rent arrears of a CURRENT tenant

rhianna99

Personally I think more Landlords should give families on LHA a chance, I don't think putting 'no DSS' on an advert is very fair. I privately rent, have rented the same house for 2 years now and our landlord is very happy with us, she says we look after the house, always pay rent on time, unlike some of her other tennants who are not on LHA. My partner works full time, but we still receive about one third of our rent in benefit. Our landlord didn't make any allowances for us though, we were required to pay a month and a half as deposit and a month up front same as any other prospective tennant. I suppose we are lucky because we have yearly contracts and our landlord is looking to rent this house to us for as long as we want (hopefully until we can afford our own home). All I am saying is people can be too quick judge and it seems to be getting harder for people to secure any decent private housing.

I have a friend who's landlord would only accept people on LHA because it meant they could charge the highest rent for a very poor quality home, my friend took the house because she was desperate. A year later her partner moved in who had a job and she was given notice to leave and they were made homeless, I don't think these landlords should be allowed a licence.

Yorkie1

Whilst I agree with most of your post, rhianna99, landlords don't have licenses so there's no control system.

moromir

The 'real' problem in my opinion, when a property is let to a tenant on housing benefit is when it comes to a Landlord wanting to take possession of their property again. A HB tenant cannot simply leave on the expiry of the S21 notice, like the majority of employed tenants would, they must wait to be forcibly evicted by the courts or else they risk being classified as 'intentially homeless' and therefore not eligible for further council assistance.

Sharp practice on the part of the Council but understandable considering the immense pressure on their limited resources, but equally understandibly a lot of time, effort and cost to the landlord in retrieving access to his property, and he might be just as desperate to put a roof over his own family's heads.

Wee_Willy_Harris

moromir wrote: »

The 'real' problem in my opinion, when a property is let to a tenant on housing benefit is when it comes to a Landlord wanting to take possession of their property again. A HB tenant cannot simply leave on the expiry of the S21 notice, like the majority of employed tenants would, they must wait to be forcibly evicted by the courts or else they risk being classified as 'intentially homeless' and therefore not eligible for further council assistance.

Sharp practice on the part of the Council but understandable considering the immense pressure on their limited resources, but equally understandibly a lot of time, effort and cost to the landlord in retrieving access to his property, and he might be just as desperate to put a roof over his own family's heads.

Ummmm..... Why the automatic assumption that a DSS tenant (or any other tenant) will want to become homeless when their tenancy ends? Is it not beyond the scope of your imagination that they may secure an alternative tenancy in much the same way that they secured the existing one? The answer to the OPs original question about "No DSS" is, sadly, often the result of crass generalisations like your own!

daisygrabber

There's just been a discussion on what advertising "no DSS" means....very recent....& it explains well why private LLs put this (including my reasons - I didn't at first but helpfully had my mind changed by the local council who seemed to do no favours to trying to get homes for people on benefits) Anyway, my LL insurance is up for renewal & to get some new cheaper insurance I have to state that my tenant was either working or self-employed at the start of the tenancy. I don't remember being asked that before for insurance (or have I just not noticed?).

G_M

Many landlords put 'no benefits/DSS' whatever in their adverts and selection process (not their contract - it would be meaningless to put a clause in the contract since by the time a contract is signed the LL is stuck with whoever they've given it to!)

They may do this from choice/preference, believing benefits claimants are more risky tenants.

Their mortgage lender (either Buy-To-Let or Residential with Consent-To-Let) may forbid renting to claimants.

Their buildings insurer may forbid renting to claimants.

They may have a special rent-guarantee insurance, again forbidding renting to claimants.