Landlords refuse any benefits claimants

Old_Git

I am a landlord for over 10 years .My most troublesome tenants have been on Benefits .My insurance was always higher with benefit claimants .
There is also increased wear & tear as benefit claimants are more likely to be at home all day.

from my experience the best tenants on benefits are the disabled .
The last time I advertised for a tenant I said must be working tenant .I still got people who where on benefits (housing benefit)and working applying .

julie777

Old_Git wrote: »

I am a landlord for over 10 years .My most troublesome tenants have been on Benefits .My insurance was always higher with benefit claimants .
There is also increased wear & tear as benefit claimants are more likely to be at home all day.

from my experience the best tenants on benefits are the disabled .
The last time I advertised for a tenant I said must be working tenant .I still got people who where on benefits (housing benefit)and working applying .

You make some good points. But when you advertised for working people, did you mean totally self-funding? Out of interest -
Did you think the workers on HB should not apply?
How would you view applicants like us who only work self employed part time when they can (due to chronic poor health) but still needing various benefits including full HB?

Old_Git

julie777 wrote: »

You make some good points. But when you advertised for working people, did you mean totally self-funding? Out of interest -
Did you think the workers on HB should not apply?
How would you view applicants like us who only work self employed part time when they can (due to chronic poor health) but still needing various benefits including full HB?

yes I wanted and got self funding tenants .I do avoid housing benefit simply because there are so many variables ,
for example will the housing benefit be paid to me or the tenant .
Will it be paid upfront or in arrears .
Does the tenant know how much HB they will get ,can they afford to pay the rest .
I had oil heating in one house .The tenant on benefits tilted the tank up so as not to have to buy a lot of oil .They broke the boiler by bleading it themselves .

As a LL I want a regular income .HB is not always guarnteed it can be late .I cant ask the local housing about a claim being late as its not my claim . The tenants may know it will be late but dont say because it dosent effect them

HappyMJ

Old_Git wrote: »

I am a landlord for over 10 years .My most troublesome tenants have been on Benefits .My insurance was always higher with benefit claimants .
There is also increased wear & tear as benefit claimants are more likely to be at home all day.

from my experience the best tenants on benefits are the disabled .
The last time I advertised for a tenant I said must be working tenant .I still got people who where on benefits (housing benefit)and working applying .

Home all day means more wear and tear and you don't want that. How strange. So does that mean you don't accept families with children where a parent is home all day looking after the child. I own a family home. I expect the tenant will have at least 2 children and I expect someone to be home all day looking after the youngest child. The wear and tear has been calculated for exactly that. Even if they earn a good salary (£30,000) as I explained earlier it's highly likely they'll get some benefits so I cannot turn them all down otherwise I would have no market.

Next year child tax credits are being cut which entitles more tenants to housing benefit so it's highly likely even more tenants will be applying that will be on some housing benefit. I cannot turn them down.

FBaby

You should not have fewer choices based on a policy that discriminates against you purely because you are unable to work due to a disability and have to claim benefits.

But fewer choices is not discriminatory. Many groups of people are left with fewer choices in all array of life, it's mainly due to supply and demand, that's how it is!

Old_Git

HappyMJ wrote: »

Home all day means more wear and tear and you don't want that. How strange. So does that mean you don't accept families with children where a parent is home all day looking after the child. I own a family home. I expect the tenant will have at least 2 children and I expect someone to be home all day looking after the youngest child. The wear and tear has been calculated for exactly that. Even if they earn a good salary (£30,000) as I explained earlier it's highly likely they'll get some benefits so I cannot turn them all down otherwise I would have no market.

Next year child tax credits are being cut which entitles more tenants to housing benefit so it's highly likely even more tenants will be applying that will be on some housing benefit. I cannot turn them down.

my latest tenants are
1 distribution manager in next .living alone .

2 couple with two children (aged 9 & 6) .
He works Monday to Friday
She works (hair dresser ) Thurs to Saturday in her taxed job .Plus some hours hairdressing elsewhere .
The grandparents do the childminding when they are not at home .
Therefore there should be less wear & tear if they are all out at work .
My latest tenant (Couple ) are paying £45 per month less than the previous tenant .I expect to make more profit from having them as tenants .It is a calculated risk .

cattermole

FBaby wrote: »

But fewer choices is not discriminatory. Many groups of people are left with fewer choices in all array of life, it's mainly due to supply and demand, that's how it is!

Again you are incorrect on your understanding of discrimination.

Fewer choices determined by ability to pay is ok or general availability of properties.

Fewer choices because of a blanket policy on benefits is not ok it is indirect discrimination. Which is covered by the law of the land and disabled people being in a protected group.





.

Floxxie

"Anti-discrimination legislation protects against discrimination on certain grounds; such as race, religion, gender, sexuality and nationality. Income or employment status is not a protected ground.

Our anti-discrimination legislation protects people from both direct and indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination occurs where a policy, which is not discriminatory in itself, if likely to impact disproportionately on people who are protected under equality laws. Some people may argue that this type of policy could be seen as indirect discrimination if, for example, housing benefit claimants were predominantly female or predominantly from an ethnic minority group. However, this type of discriminatory practice can be legal if it can be reasonably justified. A landlord whose mortgage lender imposed these conditions on him or her would be justified in adopting this practice."

If you start fighting the mortgage lenders on accepting HB tenants, then they remove themselves from the market...which many did a few years ago. I struggled to get a mortgage lender who did accept HB tenants and both my mortgage interest rate and insurance premium is much higher than it would be if they were non-HB claimants. I have no wish to commit mortgage or insurance fraud so have got the correct products. My tenants are the cleanest, tidiest people possible. You cannot generalise people just because...However I have seen several houses where professional people have rented and the state they left them in had to be seen to be believed.

FBaby

Fewer choices because of a blanket policy on benefits is not ok it is indirect discrimination. Which is covered by the law of the land and disabled people being in a protected group.

A landlord saying they don't want tenants on benefits doesn't make it a policy. If it was discrimination under the rules of law, most landlords would have long been sued!

cattermole

FBaby wrote: »

A landlord saying they don't want tenants on benefits doesn't make it a policy. If it was discrimination under the rules of law, most landlords would have long been sued!

Of course it's a policy how else would you describe it. ?!

Advertising is one thing as far as a blanket policy goes, it is at the point of stating they were unable to make a "reasonable adjustment" to the blanket policy for a disabled person it becomes unlawful.

I know I am correct because I've taken legal advice on it in the past and successfully had an adjustment made on these very grounds.

You might not like it or agree with it or fail to understand it, but it's the way it is.

Very few legal cases on discrimination for disabled people end up in court primarily because most people don't know their rights and also if a "reasonable adjustment" is made when it's is pointed out there would be no need to go to court.