Benefit claiments being discriminated against housing

missapril75

BigAunty wrote: »

There was a thread a week or two ago by someone in the same position.....There was a lot of helpful advice on that thread but I can't find it now.

Perhaps this one?

haras_nosirrah

I think it is more to do with the bank protecting their investment rather than it being on the same par as race or religion. Generalising and not including the op here but lets face it insurance companies and mortgage companies base everything on risk.
If a lender has to repossess and they have a tenant in the property who is on benefits they are much more likely to wait for the bailiffs to get council housing or because they can't move elsewhere hence the bank will find it more difficult to repossess and it will take a considerably longer period of time.
This is the main reason that landlords don't let to benefit tenants is well as they are significantly harder to evict (blame the council gate keeping for that one) and also they are much harder to get any money back for court costs and arrears when they do leave as they are not working so you may get £1 a month if you are lucky.
Insurance companies do not like it because they are less likely to upkeep the property and may be more likely to damage it.
everything is based on risk and benefit tenants are higher risk than mr and mrs professional couple.

SnooksNJ

GiveMeABreak wrote: »

It's an infortunate situation because the mortgage companies are discriminating against people on benefits. Could you imagine the uproar if a mortgage provider didn't accept black people or mexicans or men who are not married etc?

It's just wrong.

Being on benefits isn't considered a race.

mattcanary

tommix wrote: »

As you are disabled you might qualify for 'Priority status' with your local council. Which could get you a secure tenancy within 6 months.

Yes - renting through the council is far better than renting privately in my opinion too.


It gets a bad reputation but you normally get better value for the rent you pay, you get security of tenure (ie: you're extremely unlikely to get kicked out of your home just because the landlord feels like it. If this does happen, you will get rehoused elsewhere by the council or housing association) and you can decorate your home in the way you want to.

mattcanary

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

I think it is more to do with the bank protecting their investment rather than it being on the same par as race or religion. Generalising and not including the op here but lets face it insurance companies and mortgage companies base everything on risk.
If a lender has to repossess and they have a tenant in the property who is on benefits they are much more likely to wait for the bailiffs to get council housing or because they can't move elsewhere hence the bank will find it more difficult to repossess and it will take a considerably longer period of time.
This is the main reason that landlords don't let to benefit tenants is well as they are significantly harder to evict (blame the council gate keeping for that one) and also they are much harder to get any money back for court costs and arrears when they do leave as they are not working so you may get £1 a month if you are lucky.
Insurance companies do not like it because they are less likely to upkeep the property and may be more likely to damage it.
everything is based on risk and benefit tenants are higher risk than mr and mrs professional couple.

Tenants on benefits are no harder for a private landlord to evict,, than any other kind of tenant. The law states that the eviction has to be granted as long as the landlord follows the legal procedures.
It possibly is harder for a council or housing association to evict a disabled tenant than a non-disabled single person or couple without children admittedly. That is because council and housing association tenancies are subject to different laws.


OP - are you able to pay 6 months rent in advance, by any chance. Or do you have any relatives that can act as your guarantor? If you can answer yes to either or both of these things, that may open up your options considerably if you mention this to letting agents or private landlords.

BigAunty

mattcanary wrote: »

Tenants on benefits are no harder for a private landlord to evict,, than any other kind of tenant. The law states that the eviction has to be granted as long as the landlord follows the legal procedures.
.

It used to be the case in England, until the Localism Act that came in a year or two ago, that councils would routinely gate-keep and actively try to avoid accepting a tenant served notice by their landlord as homeless.

They did this by telling them to ignore the notice, saying the tenant would be considered to have made themselves homeless, and this would force the landlord to take extra steps to secure a possession order and then perhaps enforce it with bailiffs.

So yes, housing benefit claimants, did get the reputation for being harder to evict as needy people are most likely to call on the council to help and councils would stall. In comparison, an employed tenant was more likely to cooperate with the notice and extremely unlikely to approach the council homelessness department.

So while the truth is that both HB and non HB tenants in the private sector are subject to the same eviction processes, the former got a terrible reputation for taking many more months to actually leave the property.

The law has changed - councils are supposed to act on the issue of the S21 notice, they are no longer hamstrung by having to offer social housing - but this is why some landlords wouldn't touch HB claimants.

That, and the fact that payments switched to being made directly to the tenants instead of them, increasing the risk of rent arrears.

mattcanary

BigAunty wrote: »

It used to be the case in England, until the Localism Act that came in a year or two ago, that councils would routinely gate-keep and actively try to avoid accepting a tenant served notice by their landlord as homeless.

They did this by telling them to ignore the notice, saying the tenant would be considered to have made themselves homeless, and this would force the landlord to take extra steps to secure a possession order and then perhaps enforce it with bailiffs.

So yes, housing benefit claimants, did get the reputation for being harder to evict as needy people are most likely to call on the council to help and councils would stall. In comparison, an employed tenant was more likely to cooperate with the notice and extremely unlikely to approach the council homelessness department.

So while the truth is that both HB and non HB tenants in the private sector are subject to the same eviction processes, the former got a terrible reputation for taking many more months to actually leave the property.

The law has changed - councils are supposed to act on the issue of the S21 notice, they are no longer hamstrung by having to offer social housing - but this is why some landlords wouldn't touch HB claimants.

That, and the fact that payments switched to being made directly to the tenants instead of them, increasing the risk of rent arrears.

I do see what you are saying.


In the real world, tenants that do not receive benefits can make it just as difficult for a landlord to evict them as can a tenant on benefits. I have heard large-scale landlords say that some of their worst tenants have been well-off professionals. They know their rights and how to protects themselves and delay the inevitable as long as possible - even though they have trashed the landlord's property and paid virtually no rent ever since they moved in.
Like you say though, tenants on benefits are probably more likely to approach the council as homeless. On the other hand, if they are not disabled, elderly, or have no children they will get next to no help or support or advice from the council anyway.




I would also add that as a former rent arrears officer for a local authority (left in 2007), the tenants most likely to fall into serious rent arrears were not those routinely on benefits. They were those that were on and off benefits through being in and out of work for example (eg: agency workers). Nowadays as DWP benefits sanctions have increased so drastically, I would guess that this has also led to serious rent arrears. In any case,, a lot of of tenants in serious rent arrears would abandon their properties before a rent arrears eviction case even came to court. I am sure this also happens in the private rented sector too. Some tenants on benefits may well approach their local council as homeless, but I feel pretty confident that a greater majority will give up and just leave their home (perhaps to move in with relatives or friends).

Of course, some of this is a matter of perception. Many landlords will see tenants on benefits as being trouble and be reluctant to let to them in the first place. This opinion has probably only been strengthened since the sanctioning regime has been introduced, since the medical tests for tenants claiming disabilities have been changed so radically, etc. This means that people on benefits' income has become less steady and therefore there is an increasing likelihood that the rent won;t get paid (at least on time).


On the other hand, landlords on average will have lower void rates if they let to people on benefits (not including any evictions they pursue). Tenants on benefits would in general prefer to remain in the same home for a long period of time, compared to those tenants not on any form of benefits

Murphybear

PasturesNew wrote: »

Many landlords aren't planning on holding onto the house forever/long - they probably don't want to be evicting somebody who is disabled, knowing they're likely to sell up in the next 1-3 years.

Also, many mortgage providers don't allow them to rent to people on benefits - that's part of the mortgage agreement, so they can't break that rule.

What happens if someone is gainfully employed, rents a property then loses their job? They are then on benefits. Can't evict a tenant just because they are on benefits!

FBaby

Tenants on benefits are no harder for a private landlord to evict,, than any other kind of tenant. The law states that the eviction has to be granted as long as the landlord follows the legal procedures.

The main difference is that those not relaying on HB will put much more importance on getting a clean rental history so that they themselves don't find themselves struggling to get somewhere to rent. Many landlords now ask for references from previous landlords, and one that says that they had to be evicted and that it took 6 months will be much more of an issue when they can't rely on HB to house them because of their professional status.

BigAunty

Murphybear wrote: »

What happens if someone is gainfully employed, rents a property then loses their job? They are then on benefits. Can't evict a tenant just because they are on benefits!

The S21 notice is nicknamed a 'no fault' eviction notice or similar - no reason is required to be cited for it to be valid. Having said that, HB is now routinely paid directly to the tenant so the landlord isn't usually informed.

Has anyone uncovered that recent thread from a tenant with disabilities who initially struggled to rent but then got invited to multiple viewings? There was a lot of good advice on it but the search facility on MSE is weak and I've not located it.