Why don't landlords like DSS?

Silvertabby

I rent to a tenant on housing benefit. It didn't start that way. I rent privately not via an agent. It was my first time buyer home that I rented when I bought with my husband.

He has been in situ since 2009, always kept the property spotless (ex army) and is a gentleman in his 60's. Posted by haras_nosirrah

Is he entitled to an Army pension?

Dorian1958

As for landlords being "lazy" for referring to HB claimants as DSS, in the past when I haven't mentioned it in the property description I have had applicants ask "do you take DSS?". So, not really LL being lazy, just a universally accepted term which everyone understands.

haras_nosirrah

Silvertabby wrote: »

Is he entitled to an Army pension?

possibly - when I first rented to him he worked for my handy man (hence why he is good at fixing stuff in the property). He gets the housing benefit then pays me and I only know that due to having to ask for insurance purposes. I don't really know what his income is since he stopped work

System

comeandgo wrote: »

It can be a condition imposed by their insurance.

This. My insurer was Direct Line. They will only insure me if my tenant is on a disability benefit, not unemployment.

Pixie5740 wrote: »

If landlords won't accept people claiming housing benefit then that's what the advert should say.

They don't say that because it has little to do with the tenant getting housing benefit and everything to do with their mortgage lender and/or insurer not allowing unemployed people - working people claiming HB would be allowed. So they say "No DSS" because they don't want unemployed people.

I guess that the chip you have on your shoulder about landlords seems to be quite a large one.

Pixie5740

Tarambor wrote: »

They don't say that because it has little to do with the tenant getting housing benefit and everything to do with their mortgage lender and/or insurer not allowing unemployed people - working people claiming HB would be allowed. So they say "No DSS" because they don't want unemployed people.

Why not just say "no unemployed people" or "no jobseekers" rather than being lazy and using an outdated term then? What happens if your tenant who was working finds themselves out of work?

Tarambor wrote: »

I guess that the chip you have on your shoulder about landlords seems to be quite a large one.

It's not my fault that you can't move with the times.

Silvertabby

“ Is he entitled to an Army pension?
Originally posted by Silvertabby ”

possibly - when I first rented to him he worked for my handy man (hence why he is good at fixing stuff in the property). He gets the housing benefit then pays me and I only know that due to having to ask for insurance purposes. I don't really know what his income is since he stopped work. Posted by haras_nosirrah

The reason I ask is that there are, unfortunately, a lot of ex Service personnel out there who have misunderstood the pensions system and assume that as they weren't contacted by Pensions when they reached 60, then they're not entitled to anything. That may not be the case at all.

GwylimT

Murphybear wrote: »

That's not a benefit any more than a salary is. And it's considerably less

It is a state benefit.

saajan_12

Of course not all landlords prefer non DSS/unemployment benefit/whatever term tenants, but this is a common criteria in ads as well as insurance policies. Potential primary reasons:

1. Rent not guaranteed: a fixed sum is paid by the gvt usually to the tenant so you're still relying on the tenant passing it on, and the tenant has to pay a top up themselves if the property rent is higher, which they may be able to ill afford.

2. Rent likely to be stopped / delayed: HB is paid in arrears, so unless the tenant has an extra month's rent saved to pay in advance, they end up paying the LL at the end of the month. So, you only know of rent payment issues after the month, in order to begin eviction procedures if necessary. Also, if HB is stopped as the tenant is believed to be not eligible, it would be very hard to get back into employment and they are likely to have lower savings to cover the gap (else they'd probably be getting lower benefits). Whereas a professional person who lost their job already has the CV / experience and is more likely to find another job quicker and likely has higher savings to cover in the interim.

3. Difficulty evicting: A tenant mostly paying rent through benefits receipts is more likely to aim for a council house, with the council advising them to wait until bailiffs, thus increasing the cost / rent void for the LL. The tenant also likely has lower savings to pay for rent arrears or court costs as well as any potential damage beyond what the deposit covers. Meanwhile for a professional person, a council house is less likely to be the aim, making them more likely to try to protect their name from a court order / CCJ and work with the LL to get a good reference for the next rental / job prospects. They likely have higher savings to pay for any damages or new tenancy and moving fees upfront so they are likely to be able to be more proactive about moving on.

4. Property damage: Anyone is less likely to care for a property when they have nothing to lose, for example when being evicted as it won't be their home for the near future. Per (3) this is likely to go on for a longer period with DSS tenants, plus if they are aiming to get into a council house for which a reference is less critical they have nothing to lose. The result is greater damage to the property towards the end of the tenancy, resulting in costs to remediate and a rent void during the works.

As a result, this greater costs presents more risk for the LL, which presents secondary reasons:

5. Insurance policies often refuse to cover or charge more to cover ‘DSS / housing benefit’

6. Worried other LLs will not want to rent to tenants on ‘DSS / housing benefit’ making them harder to evict.

aneary

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The Department of Social Security hasn't existed since 2001 nor does it live on in any official government documents. The department has not existed for 16 years. There are people approaching their 40's who were still in primary school when the Department of Social Security was dissolved who therefore would never have had the chance to use the services of said government department.

I'd check your maths, I was 21 in 2001 and I'm not yet 40!!

Pixie5740

aneary wrote: »

I'd check your maths, I was 21 in 2001 and I'm not yet 40!!

People in their 20s and 30s are approaching 40