Landlord "rejection of HB claimants".....

Turnbull2000

Callie22 wrote: »

Hopefully they'll experience some nice long voids.

Doubt it. The Tories have kept house building to a minimum, and housing demand as a great as possible through either direct intervention are allowing mass immigration to continue.

The next decade will be a golden era for landlords. There's going to be a lot of money to be made.

anselld

tbs624 wrote: »

No comment from the supporters of this type of discrimination on the tax reliefs afforded to LLs?

There are no tax reliefs afforded to LLs. They are taxed on profit like any other business or trader. In fact profit is taxed directly as income so they do not have the avoidance opportunity afforded to the self employed to pay themselves in dividends.

outofmoney

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

Doubt it. The Tories have kept house building to a minimum, and housing demand as a great as possible through either direct intervention are allowing mass immigration to continue.

The next decade will be a golden era for landlords. There's going to be a lot of money to be made.

With a good chunk of renters relying on HB even if just a small amount, there may be many LLs that have to back down on their 'No DSS' rule (If able)

00ec25

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Except that (rightly) we have anti-discrimination laws in this country, and a business is not free to accept or reject paying customers on an arbitrary basis. For example, the owners of a bed-and-breakfast business were not permitted to decline the business of a gay couple...

true - the declination was directly related to the homophobic attitude shown and thus covered by the legislation so was unlawful

Voyager2002 wrote: »

A landlord has every right to decline to let a property to someone whom they believe may be unable to pay the rent, for example a person who would rely on LHA. However, once a person is already a tenant and has demonstrated their ability to make rent payments, the fact that they receive benefit should not have any bearing on the question of their continued tenancy. Of course, if they start missing rent payments then the situation changes.

and your connection with discrimination legislation is what ?

a business decision to exclude benefits claimants is not covered by discriminatory legislation (and long may that be so)

DaveTheMus

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Except that (rightly) we have anti-discrimination laws in this country, and a business is not free to accept or reject paying customers on an arbitrary basis. For example, the owners of a bed-and-breakfast business were not permitted to decline the business of a gay couple...

The gay couple will always be gay.....they have no power to change that

A benefit claimant is only one as long as they don't earn enough....they have the power to change this

Is refusing someone on benefits a 20 grand loan discriminatory? No...

Is refusing to continue a business relationship with a low-earner because you fear they will default? No...

kunekune22

Brallaqueen wrote: »

I would however, like to see much more family involvement in supporting anyone affected by the lack of social housing, from being a guarantor (if they will not guarantee their own, that's a bad sign to any LL).

Those being asked to be guarantors are already paying for their own housing. It's a dangerous thing to do and you'd have to have a LOT of spare money around to be able to take the risk of 6 or 12 months worth of rent on another property. I'd never ask someone to do that for me, not in any circumstances - not because I fear that I couldn't pay the rent but there is always the possibility of an unplanned. disaster. And in fact, someone who doesn't have masses of cushioning in their budget won't be accepted as a guarantor anyway.

tbs624

outofmoney wrote: »

...... it is getting to the point that those receiving HB will only be able to afford, and get accepted for the damp, half derelict and homes in 'no go' areas. Is that really fair?

in reponse to which

Brallaqueen wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be fair? If a person feels they deserve better, that doesn't automatically make it the case.

My bolding. Wow. Bring back the workhouses, that'll teach the poor? Surely everyone "deserves better" than to live in the type of conditions to which outofmoney refers?

Brallaqueen wrote: »

Is this a sort of social engineering from the Govt perspective?
Make it less appealing to rent to claimants > limit private sector housing options > severely limit social housing via RTB > make it less favourable to be on benefits as a lifestyle option

Ah, being on benefits as a "lifestyle option". Bless the ConDems and their demonising of anyone who needs to use the benefit system. The "lifestylers" were/are a minority.

silvercar

The government has decided to restrict LHA to the 30th percentile for any given property size and area. So a below average rent is going to mean that the property is below average in some way, whether it be location/ size condition or anything else. So tenants who claim have to decide whether to pay more themselves out of other income/ support from family/ savings or accept that their property is going to be cheaper in some way.

Those (many) HB recipients who are working may decide they can juggle their budgets and afford to pay more rent, those with no outside help, with full HB entitlement, and relying only on limited benefits will have to live with that.

No point blaming landlords for discriminating, it is government policy that has decided to reduce HB levels.

MobileSaver

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Except that (rightly) we have anti-discrimination laws in this country, and a business is not free to accept or reject paying customers on an arbitrary basis.

That is total nonsense! A business is (quite rightly) perfectly free to accept or reject customers on whatever arbitrary basis it chooses.

What a business cannot do is discriminate based on eight very specific characteristics: age, disability, gender, marriage, pregnancy, race, religion and/or sexuality.

jayss

I don't object to landlords who advertise upfront no HB, but to evict tenants who are paying their rent just because they claim seems very harsh.