landlords & tenants on HB

want2bmortgage3

Sammy, do you know when this Universal credit scheme is starting?

mysterywoman10

newsgroup_monkey wrote: »

Of course you can't judge a book by its cover but everyone has prejudices. We all do, but we don't talk about them.

If you are renting a house out, you are entirely at will to rent to whoever you want. Unless you clearly state why, you are welcome to be racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever. It's your place and if there are plenty of potential tenants, then stick to the one who suits your prejudices the best.

It's not a job so people don't have to give any reason why they don't want you as a tenant.

Erm I don't think so! One of the main reasons legislation was initially bought in regarding racism was because of Housing particularly when black people were discriminated against purely on race grounds. Anyone can be taken to court for such behavior. I suggest you read the advice here if you are a landlord.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/discrimination_w/discrimination_discrimination_because_of_race_religion_or_belief_e/taking_action_about_race_discrimination.htm#race_discrimination_in_housing

The fact it rarely happens that people take these matters further, does not mean you or any other landlord are above the law.

In the same way if you refuse to carry out reasonable adjustments for a disabled person you would be breaking the law.

The fact it is not a "job" is completely irrelevent.

tunnel

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Erm I don't think so! One of the main reasons legislation was initially bought in regarding racism was because of Housing particularly when black people were discriminated against purely on race grounds. Anyone can be taken to court for such behavior. I suggest you read the advice here if you are a landlord.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/discrimination_w/discrimination_discrimination_because_of_race_religion_or_belief_e/taking_action_about_race_discrimination.htm#race_discrimination_in_housing

The fact it rarely happens that people take these matters further, does not mean you or any other landlord are above the law.

In the same way if you refuse to carry out reasonable adjustments for a disabled person you would be breaking the law.

The fact it is not a "job" is completely irrelevent.

Newsgroup monkey is quite right in their statement,i'm not saying its right,cos its not,but any LL is entitled to pick or choose whom they wish to let their property to without justifying their choice. No amount of legislation is ever going to change that.

mysterywoman10

I think I would change the word "entitled" because this is incorrrect. People may do it and I'm sure they do but it does not make them "entitled" to do it because it is unlawful.

The fact that it is difficult to bring a case in these circumstances, does not mean it cannot happen. Clearly the law isn't effective enough. But I am not naive enough to believe that legislation can change peoples attitudes.

I am surprised though that someone would promote being racist or discrimination on a public message board. Saying that basically all landlords are above the law and can do exactly as they please. Cases have been won and compensation awarded for unlawful discrimination.

tim123456789

sandsni wrote: »

Landlord insurance can be considerably higher for tenants on benefits .

I find this hard to believe

because:

it is perfectly possible for an employed T to move to being on benefits and if T still payed the rent LL wouldn't have a clue that this had happened

tim

tim123456789

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Some of these sweeping generalisations make me sooooooooooo angry, although I appreciate they maybe based on personal experiences which lead to predujices.

I said it on another thread a day or so ago, the tenant before my severely disabled daughter in her flat was a "consultant heart doctor" this is totally and utterly true and he lived like a pig, he caused 4,000 plus worth of damage to the property. Albeit he paid to put it right but he was an anti social neighbor for other residents in the block.

Even though this 4,000 was spent on the property before she moved in they had failed to clear blocked bath's/toilet from his filth.

My main concern was that I or any of my relatives would never be referred to him at the local hospital and made a note of his name, when demands for bills etc. came to the flat for payment!!!

Don't judge a book by it's cover!!

I agree

Once lived (OO) in a block where one of the flats was rented to a tenant who caused the rest of us all sorts of problems with noise, abusing the parking rules, etc, etc. Acted like he owned the block instead of just renting one falt.

His job?

He was the editor or a national newspaper!

Naf

I don't like this mindset that links between receipt of HB and being a poor tenant; even though I know that people's experiences appear to support it.
We receive HB, and we always have done since our first was born. We pay on time, we keep the house in good order (usually substantially better than when we moved in); yet because other scummy individuals have no respect, I struggle to find places to live.
Notice I said that experiences appear to support it; I'm pretty sure that the majority of HB recipients get it without their LL ever knowing, because they continue to pay on time and don't leave a mess when they leave.
Find out who you're letting in; not just whether they happen to need some help making ends meet (usually through no fault of their own or lack of trying).

newsgroup_monkey

Woah there!

I never said I was promoting discrimination. My personal attitude is that we are all equal and therefore should be given equal chances.

What I said was people have prejudices. We all have them.

If we let out a house, we have but 2 things to think about a tenant. Will they pay, will they look after my house? If your prejudice gets in the way of that, you aren't going to have them as a tenant.

My personal prejudices are against people who use race, sex, disability card etc. for gain.

mysterywoman10

My point was that it was being said a Landlord can let to whoever they like regardless of race, disability etc. and this is unlawful. If they turned away a prospective tenant purely on those grounds. Orginally this came up because another poster said under no circumstances would they let to ANYONE ON BENEFITS. It is actually very easy to prove discrimination against a severely disabled person in these circumstances because I have done it and got the Letting Agent in question to change their policies because they were expecting people on DSS (as they still advertise it as!) to pay 3 months rent in advance whereas a person in employment only one month. If you are so disabled you will never work then this is treating a disabled person unfairly and is indirect discrimination.

Of course sensibly you want to ensure the rent is paid and the property look after I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

Not sure what you mean in your last sentance you mean you are predujiced against people who want to assess their rights and don't want to be discriminated against? I'm not sure how gain comes into it unless discrimination is claimed unfairly which would be entirely different.

mysterywoman10

tim123456789 wrote: »

I agree

Once lived (OO) in a block where one of the flats was rented to a tenant who caused the rest of us all sorts of problems with noise, abusing the parking rules, etc, etc. Acted like he owned the block instead of just renting one falt.

His job?

He was the editor or a national newspaper!

LOL

The Doctor in question had black bags at the window, one dirty mattress and the place was completely full of rubbish. He got drunk every night and was abusive to the other tenants. This was told to me by the LA and other tenants. The whole place had to be completely fumigated when he left and redecorated(except they forgot the toilet and drains in the bathroom!) The toilet was horrific.