Landlords refuse any benefits claimants

cattermole

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

I don't think being on benefits (even for disability) is a protected characteristic, is it?
The disability itself is protected but not the resultant financial profile, is that right?

I mean, a landlord probably could not say he doesn't want anyone in a wheelchair or with depression. That would be discrimination.

But he can still refuse a particular financial profile even if it comprised incapacity benefits (or whatever they're called now).

Your missing the point someone who has no choice but to be on benefits because of a disability and cannot possibly work even with help at work is protected in these ccircumstances.

Anyone else on benefits can potentially change their circumstances by no longer being a benefit claimant that is the difference!

Yes he could reject a financial profile if say a single disabled person wanted to rent a 3 bedroomed house and would clearly only get the one bedroomed LHA rate. But not just because they are in receipt of disability benefits no.

mrginge

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

I don't think being on benefits (even for disability) is a protected characteristic, is it?
The disability itself is protected but not the resultant financial profile, is that right?

I mean, a landlord probably could not say he doesn't want anyone in a wheelchair or with depression. That would be discrimination.

That would be direct discrimination.

But he can still refuse a particular financial profile even if it comprised incapacity benefits (or whatever they're called now).

The question is whether this constitutes indirect discrimination and thus would also be unlawful.

mrginge

Floxxie wrote: »

"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.

... 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."

This is the part I can't comprehend. The suggestion that the policy is reasonably justified because the lender has imposed the restriction on the landlord. This suggests to me that -

1. A landlord without a mortgage would not be justified in imposing the same restriction.
2. A lender could theoretically freely impose other terms such as 'no blacks' that would then become reasonably justified.

As we all know, contract terms cannot override statute, so by definition if the restriction is in itself deemed as discriminatory, then the lender cannot enforce their term on the LL and the LL cannot then use it as a defence against a complaint.

I'd be interested to see any actual cases, but struggling to find anything. Of course without any to refer to this is jmo, just as the quoted comment and links previously are equally subjective.

HappyMJ

What I can never understand is what if the tenant loses their job a week into the 6 month tenancy? Maybe for gross misconduct for missing work whilst moving into the new property.

They would then be able to claim housing benefit. Does the landlord who has a mortgage and/or an insurance policy saying no tenants on benefits now have to kick them out. They have a 6 month tenancy. The landlord couldn't kick them out for quite some time especially if the rent continued to be paid on time each month.

julie777

OP, do check your tenancy as franklee suggests, get your name down for social housing (you've got to be in it to win it) and if you do need to find another private rental follow Deanna's advice, she had been there done that and got the t-shirt.

Good luck.[/QUOTE]

In Bournemouth it seems you can only get to SH thru council and they only help if you are being evicted. My husband doesn't want to be evicted in case it goes against us in future! Also our current rental contract says if we don't leave on time we forfeit the deposit.
Thanks everyone for good suggestions.

julie777

cattermole wrote: »

I have successfully argued in the past on behalf of my daughter that it is Discrimination on behalf of the Agents if they exclude you from renting when you are unable to work because of severe disability and therefore have no choice but to claim benefits.

Agents also have a duty to work with the Equality Act 2010 the same as anyone else does.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/about-discrimination/equality-act-2010-discrimination-and-your-rights/

It means that they have to make reasonable adjustments, therefore excluding someone from renting when they are disabled and have no choice but to claim housing benefits would be discrimination. As disability is a protected characteristic. As long as you can demonstrate you can pay the rent with your benefits if you have a disability this should not exclude you from renting.

A larger Agency would probably take it on board if it was pointed out to them, if they didn't except it verbally a letter might do the trick.

Thank you for your encouraging advice.
Ironically he only agency which has openly said they will not deal with tenants on benefits IS THE ONE WE HAVE BEEN WITH for 6 yrs!
I'm not going to upset them in case they also stop us getting the deposit back.
Most agencies say it is the landlords' instructions not to have DSS or HB.

Pixie5740

julie777 wrote: »

In Bournemouth it seems you can only get to SH thru council and they only help if you are being evicted. My husband doesn't want to be evicted in case it goes against us in future! Also our current rental contract says if we don't leave on time we forfeit the deposit.
Thanks everyone for good suggestions.

What about other social landlords such as Housing Associations? Have you registered with any?

Why would being evicted ever count against you? A section 21 notice is a "no fault" notice. That won't ever count against you. Eviction for arrears on the other hand (section 8) probably would make renting more difficult in the future.

Your landlord cannot keep your deposit if you don't leave on time. What does that even mean anyway? The tenancy can only be ended by you, the tenant, serving notice or a court granting an eviction notice. The landlord cannot end the tenancy himself.

Have you contacted Shelter to discuss your options?

julie777

sniggings wrote: »

that doesn't stop them going on the list.

it only means the council doesn't have to rehouse them immediately.

MY particular council certainly IMPLIED we cannot get any help from them whatsoever but perhaps I should check that.

julie777

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.

Sounds like you are a reasonable Landlord. Well done. If the prospectives were unable to work would you take into account the savings they have due to living frugally? Surely that gives some reassurance. Also it used to be that a guarantor was acceptable but that is rarely accepted these days. What is your view?

Floxxie

mrginge wrote: »

This is the part I can't comprehend. The suggestion that the policy is reasonably justified because the lender has imposed the restriction on the landlord. This suggests to me that -

1. A landlord without a mortgage would not be justified in imposing the same restriction.
2. A lender could theoretically freely impose other terms such as 'no blacks' that would then become reasonably justified.

As we all know, contract terms cannot override statute, so by definition if the restriction is in itself deemed as discriminatory, then the lender cannot enforce their term on the LL and the LL cannot then use it as a defence against a complaint.

I'd be interested to see any actual cases, but struggling to find anything. Of course without any to refer to this is jmo, just as the quoted comment and links previously are equally subjective.

1. Correct I agree that a landlord would not be justified in discriminating.
2. This is a direct discrimination which is not allowed and is made clear under current anti-discrimination law.

I also agree that there shouldn't be a difference between those claiming HB and those who don't, however until the political parties get involved to open up the BTL market to allow LL to accept HB tenants without extra costs, then the mortgage and insurance companies are justified in choosing their terms and conditions.