Why no DSS/LHA ?

Anubis_2

Tiglet wrote: »

My situation pretty much reflects what Jamie11 said.

I took on a tenant on LHA in January. Although the level of benefit didn't cover the whole of the rent, she (or the guarantor) was able to make up the difference. However, she has recently had her benefit reduced and all she pays is what she gets in LHA. I don't know whether the guarantor will cough up the difference, but a few months ago he wasn't able to pay on time, and I'm not relying him paying anything in future.

I've got insurance against this, but only until the end of the year, and it may
well take longer than this to regain possession of the flat (the Council will insist that she stays until the Bailiffs kick her out).

This is probably a pretty mild example of what can go wrong - I don't expect she'll trash the place - but I'm still losing money at a time when I can't afford it.

I would say that it's simply not worth renting to people on benefits unless there is a significant premium available to offset the possible
losses.

Thank you for sharing your experience which is well presented

I would like to know though, what happens when the working person suddenly loses their job? Given the current climate, someone can be in work one week, out of it the next.

Do LL who do not rent to DSS use clauses that if you lose your job, you lose the property?

Anyone can find themselves on benefits at any time. What about disabled people too who cannot work through no fault of their own? Is the same view taken?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Anubis wrote: »

........Do LL who do not rent to DSS use clauses that if you lose your job, you lose the property?......

They can't. There is a legal eviction procedure which covers all eventualities. THAT is what a LL MUST use in order to evict, and ONLY that.

Anubis_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

They can't. There is a legal eviction procedure which covers all eventualities. THAT is what a LL MUST use in order to evict, and ONLY that.

Thanks

I am wondering if a working person who has been renting would suddenly become unviable and a bad tenant if they lost their job?

It's interesting how some feel those on LHA are a risk not only for rent, but may not clean or trash the place, which in some cases may well be true. ( and I have little doubts it is )

However, would the working now unemployed person suddenly be viewed differently by those LL who do not accept DSS or, would they be prepared to make exceptions basing each case on merit?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Anubis wrote: »

Thanks

I am wondering if a working person who has been renting would suddenly become unviable and a bad tenant if they lost their job?

It's interesting how some feel those on LHA are a risk not only for rent, but may not clean or trash the place, which in some cases may well be true. ( and I have little doubts it is )

However, would the working now unemployed person suddenly be viewed differently by those LL who do not accept DSS or, would they be prepared to make exceptions basing each case on merit?

There is a housing market which encompasses the private rental sector. There are simply not enough tenants NOT claiming LHA to satisfy the number of rental properties. So a percentage of LL simply MUST take LHA claimants or the private rental sector collapses.

As for the "risks" with LHA claimants? As previously stated, good tenants tent to be good tenants, bad tenants tend to be bad tenants. The source of their income is no indicator of which is which. LL's should seek to identify the good tenant rather than simply the source of their rental payments.

Benji

Anubis wrote: »

I would like to know though, what happens when the working person suddenly loses their job? Given the current climate, someone can be in work one week, out of it the next.

I would be inclined to think that in this situation, a landlord would be able to consider a tenants previous reliability when deciding on the viability of the tenancy.

jamie11

Anubis wrote: »

Thanks

I am wondering if a working person who has been renting would suddenly become unviable and a bad tenant if they lost their job?

It's interesting how some feel those on LHA are a risk not only for rent, but may not clean or trash the place, which in some cases may well be true. ( and I have little doubts it is )

However, would the working now unemployed person suddenly be viewed differently by those LL who do not accept DSS or, would they be prepared to make exceptions basing each case on merit?

It's an unfortunate fact of life that some people will trash the very place they live in, especially if it's rented and they feel no attachment to it. People working that lose their job will usually be looking for a new job from the start. That's fine and as it should be. However there are far too many nowadays that have never had a job to start with, neither did their parents. Those are the ones that private landlords try to steer clear of. Because they are continually on the move from property to property they never develop a sense of pride in their homes, often do not pay rent and leave a trail of bad taste (and debts) behind them when they're gone.

If a tenant has been a good paying tenant and loses his job, and therefore his income, that is really what LHA and JSA is all about, to provide a safety net until they get back on their feet. I have every sympathy for someone in that situation.

I struggle to find sympathy for young ladies that produce a child at age 18 and become eligible for a flat at taxpayers expense, then move in an equally f e c kless young man that doesn't bother to work either. (I have a tenant who fits that description).

The children of such households are also likely to perpetuate the situation when they also come of age. Never ending circle.

My tenant pays her rent, and keeps the property in reasonable condition, but many don't. Would anyone expect a landlord to provide a home to tenants that insist on everything and give nothing in return?

NodKelly

This may be slightly off topic but is there any resource for people claiming benefits to find private landlords willing to accept them?
Personally i find the "no DSS" policy of many private landlords inflammatory and discriminatory, although i am homeless and unemployed it hasn't always been the case and i resent the stigmatism attached to JSA by landlords especially as social housing is oversubscribed in many areas and local authorities frequently push people towards private tenancies.
Since there is no such thing as a right to be housed in this country and the job market is a mess i find myself in a crazy situation where despite being experienced and qualified i can't seem to find a job, made exponentially more difficult by the fact that i also have no home which, despite the fact that it is financially viable through housing benefit, i can't seem to get for the very reason that it would be through housing benefit.
Surely Landlords should be allowed to vet their tenants but this is widespread discrimination, tantamount to saying that so-and-so's money is not good enough. Anyway, if anyone can answer my question it would be much appreciated.

G_M

NodKelly wrote: »

This may be slightly off topic but is there any resource for people claiming benefits to find private landlords willing to accept them?
Personally i find the "no DSS" policy of many private landlords inflammatory and discriminatory, although i am homeless and unemployed it hasn't always been the case and i resent the stigmatism attached to JSA by landlords especially as social housing is oversubscribed in many areas and local authorities frequently push people towards private tenancies.
Since there is no such thing as a right to be housed in this country and the job market is a mess i find myself in a crazy situation where despite being experienced and qualified i can't seem to find a job, made exponentially more difficult by the fact that i also have no home which, despite the fact that it is financially viable through housing benefit, i can't seem to get for the very reason that it would be through housing benefit.
Surely Landlords should be allowed to vet their tenants but this is widespread discrimination, tantamount to saying that so-and-so's money is not good enough. Anyway, if anyone can answer my question it would be much appreciated.

I think the thread speaks for itself.

Some LLs choose to go into the property business, some are forced in by their own circumstances. Either way, it is their property, and they can choose who to let to - and this is primarily a business decision.

If they prefer to avoid the greater financial risk associated with claimants over working people, that is much the same as a mortgage lender, credit card issuer or loan company choosing which customer profilles they wish to do business with.

outofmoney

It is amazing how many will base their view on ONE experience, often not even a personal one, just something they heard from a friend of a friend.

I ONCE fell down the stairs, but I do not choose to completely avoid them now in my everyday life. THREE times I have been stung by a wasp, I now try to avoid them as best as possible but realise that not all will deliberately sting me!

We have been privately renting for 17 years. We receive HB but have to top up as the LHA is lower than our (below average) rent. Only twice have we been late in paying our rent. The first occasion was when my husbands work chose to swap from weekly to monthly payments. We were paid up by the next month. The other occasion was when he very un-expectantly lost his job. We had some savings but needed this for bills and food so had to wait until benefits kicked in. Luckily our LL was OK about it.

We did not suddenly decide that we would become dirty, unclean tenants, nor that would we trash the place. We have four children doing well at school so why would we want to suddenly uproot them and do a moonlight flit or make them daily live in a hovel.

If I was a LL I would be most cautious of single men. The type who normally prefer to spend money on booze than rent. And the young single mum who sees fags as more important than a roof over her child. But without actually speaking to these people how could I possibly judge what they are really like and without doing any checks how can I assume they will be bad tenants.

The No DSS rule should be banned and LL should give everyone the benefit of the doubt. OK, they can then decide to go with working but to rule people out without giving a chance is bad.

real1314

NodKelly wrote: »

This may be slightly off topic but is there any resource for people claiming benefits to find private landlords willing to accept them?
Personally i find the "no DSS" policy of many private landlords inflammatory and discriminatory, although i am homeless and unemployed it hasn't always been the case and i resent the stigmatism attached to JSA by landlords especially as social housing is oversubscribed in many areas and local authorities frequently push people towards private tenancies.
Since there is no such thing as a right to be housed in this country and the job market is a mess i find myself in a crazy situation where despite being experienced and qualified i can't seem to find a job, made exponentially more difficult by the fact that i also have no home which, despite the fact that it is financially viable through housing benefit, i can't seem to get for the very reason that it would be through housing benefit.
Surely Landlords should be allowed to vet their tenants but this is widespread discrimination, tantamount to saying that so-and-so's money is not good enough. Anyway, if anyone can answer my question it would be much appreciated.

1. Of course it is discrimination; any decision is discrimination, that is what discrimination means. It isn't illegal discrimination though. It is also an entirely logical discrimination, as, on a risk-based basis, HB tenants have lower incomes and therefore will find it harder to cover their rent.

2. Why are you now unemployed and homeless?

:cool: