landlords & tenants on HB

newsgroup_monkey

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

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.

The last sentence is what I'm talking about.

If you came to me and said I should give you a job or house because you were black or disabled, in my mind, you would immediately remove yourself from the running. Positive discrimination is as damaging as negative. If I don't need to know, why mention it?

All I care about is whether you can do the job, or pay the rent.

sandsni

If a privately owned residential property is unsuitable for someone with disabilities, however severe, I don't see how it could be considered prejudice or discrimination to not let it to someone with disabilities. I doubt if every private landlord has unlimited funds to make significant alterations to a property to accommodate a potential tenant. It doesn't mean they are wilfully discriminating, and for all you know they could be doing all sorts to help people with disabilities in ways you know nothing about.

sandsni

tim123456789 wrote: »

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

That's absolutely true, and I don't know where the LL would stand with the insurance company in those circumstances, or whether they would pay out a claim if the LL maintained that they had no idea the T was now on benefits. But any time I go to get a quote, it's always one of the questions they ask (along with whether you allow smokers or pets - so I'm guessing it's to do with perceived risk and the probability of a claim)

mysterywoman10

sandsni wrote: »

If a privately owned residential property is unsuitable for someone with disabilities, however severe, I don't see how it could be considered prejudice or discrimination to not let it to someone with disabilities. I doubt if every private landlord has unlimited funds to make significant alterations to a property to accommodate a potential tenant. It doesn't mean they are wilfully discriminating, and for all you know they could be doing all sorts to help people with disabilities in ways you know nothing about.

I don't think someone with a serious disabilities is going to consider looking at a property that is totally unsuitable. The LA would help with any adaptions and funding, they would also not agree to a move (if care was going in either if it was totally unsuitable). I am talking about very small adjustments for example if you have high wooden risers between rooms it makes it very difficult to get a wheelchair across Or allowing a few holes to be drilled in a wall for a hoist (not at their expense!) If you look back the term is "reasonable" adjustments. Many new build ground floor flats that were build in there 1000's about 10 years ago (for the BTL market) are very suitable for wheelchair users and require little or no major adaptations and their is no expense involved to the landlord whatsoever.

You misunderstand what I mean when it comes to discrimination/reasonable adjustments I gave an example of expecting someone to pay a larger deposit.

mysterywoman10

newsgroup_monkey wrote: »

The last sentence is what I'm talking about.

If you came to me and said I should give you a job or house because you were black or disabled, in my mind, you would immediately remove yourself from the running. Positive discrimination is as damaging as negative. If I don't need to know, why mention it?

All I care about is whether you can do the job, or pay the rent.

I think this is fair enough and I don't have a problem with that point of view The whole debate as far as I am concerned is ruling out people totally just because they are on benefits and are unable to work. A severely disabled tenant can be a very good tenant because they are guaranteeed the rent being paid by LHA. And if they have sleep in carers the law also NOW gives them the 2 bedroomed rate, even if they are single, this is because the DWP have been discriminating in their legislation and the law had to be changed. The fight continues to allow the same law to cater for say an elderly couple who need separate bedrooms and a family with two severely disabled children who cannot share the same bedroom.

mysterywoman10

Also you will find if you have allowed minor adaptions to your property for dissabled users the Council will help in finding suitable teneants and keep a special list, so it is not all bad

jamie11

nat38 wrote: »

thanks werdnal! yes, another question

I know it doesn't seem a good idea to get a HB tenant in our first let, but she is a single mum with 2 kids and I really doubt she'll want to mess up as the house is exactly what she needs (only 5min from her mum who looks after her kids)

Single Mum with 2 kids? I have an exact match with one of my tenants, I noticed this morning that her rent had not been paid directly to me as usual, on inquiry I find it's been suspended, I am considering issuing S8 and S21 to her tomorrow, not all tenants are concerned about their future needs, or those of their children, some are just stupid. If I have to throw her out because of rent arrears then she will get no help from the council to rehouse her and her children.

Not only that, I find I am now in a position where the council may demand I pay them back the rent paid directly to me even though I knew nothing of her shenanigans in moving her boyfriend into the property.

Stupid girl.

Naf

Whether someone will prioritise payment of rent or not has nothing to do with their receipt of any benefit. The people who don't very likely still won't even if they are employed. I think it'll be a good thing once it become common practise to report rent payments on credit reports (just so long as its carefully managed when it comes to joint occupancy)