Landlords who say 'no DSS' breaking equality laws

D_M_E

The thousands of lettings agents and landlords around the country who reject housing benefit claimants could be flouting equality laws, due a recent legal case.

Although this did not proceed through the court, if it were to do so it could affect landlords and agents everywhere should a claimant eventually win.

The agent in this case settled out of court so no precedent or decision set as yet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42979242

Comms69

Im not convinced, the basis of this claim is that the majority of people affected are women. But that's not the cause of it.


It doesn't say 'no women'.

cloo

Yes, but she was claiming 'indirect discrimination'. It is well documented the benefit cuts disproportionately effect women because they are more likely not not work, work pt or be in low-paid employment. (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/19/austerity-women-men-low-income)

I'm not surprised that LLs are reluctant to rent to people on benefits - not because of some fault of people on benefits, or because LLs are heartless, but because most LLs own one or two properties, often with mortgages against them, and are dependent on the income. At the same time the government has more or less declared war on people on benefits, has cut benefits and expressed this is direction they will very much carry on in. And it is imposing a system (universal credit) that stops direct benefit payment to landlords and has already shown in pilots that many recipients fall behind of rent payments with it.

davidmcn

Comms69 wrote: »

Im not convinced, the basis of this claim is that the majority of people affected are women. But that's not the cause of it.

It doesn't say 'no women'.

You're not convinced because you don't know what indirect discrimination is, or you understand the concept but don't think this constitutes indirect discrimination?

Comms69

cloo wrote: »

Yes, but she was claiming 'indirect discrimination'. It is well documented the benefit cuts disproportionately effect women because they are more likely not not work, work pt or be in low-paid employment. (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/19/austerity-women-men-low-income)

I'm not surprised that LLs are reluctant to rent to people on benefits - not because of some fault of people on benefits, or because LLs are heartless, but because most LLs own one or two properties, often with mortgages against them, and are dependent on the income. At the same time the government has more or less declared war on people on benefits, has cut benefits and expressed this is direction they will very much carry on in. And it is imposing a system (universal credit) that stops direct benefit payment to landlords and has already shown in pilots that many recipients fall behind of rent payments with it.

No I understand the claim. But that's perfectly legal. The case wasn't about not renting to people on benefits, but simply advertising a property as 'no dss'. The bit quoted from the article is totally misleading. (not the OPs fault, but the journalists)

PasturesNew

I don't see it as equality .... what next, "mansions for all?"

Clutching at straws with this one, no doubt some organisation wants some free exposure/publicity.

If it's indirect discrimination, then how about making men more accountable for actions and children. Too easy for the slackers to get off free/light without comeback.

Comms69

davidmcn wrote: »

You're not convinced because you don't know what indirect discrimination is, or you understand the concept but don't think this constitutes indirect discrimination?

Sorry not convinced by this claim: The thousands of lettings agents and landlords around the country who reject housing benefit claimants could be flouting equality laws, due a recent legal case.


As that wasn't what the case centred on. The argument was a blanket ban on benefits claimants, by advertising 'no dss' was indirect discrimination - which it might be.


But the claim that landlords and letting agents might be breaking the law by refusing to let to people on benefits is simply not true.


Being poor is not a protected characteristic.

bowlhead99

cloo wrote: »

Yes, but she was claiming 'indirect discrimination'. It is well documented the benefit cuts disproportionately effect women because they are more likely not not work, work pt or be in low-paid employment. (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/19/austerity-women-men-low-income)

I'm not surprised that LLs are reluctant to rent to people on benefits - not because of some fault of people on benefits, or because LLs are heartless,

I'm not surprised they are reluctant either. If you're not allowed to advertise for 'no DSS', one solution to the risk of getting a poor or benefits-dependent person as your tenant is to spend money doing up your property to a high standard and then try to let it out at high rates that those on benefits or DSS money will be less likely to afford; and carry out expensive and invasive background checks and referencing of everyone who wants the property.

That probably isn't going to help those who do not work, work part time or are in low paid employment in terms of giving them lots of choice of affordable housing. If a major perceived problem is a rich / poor divide or a gender divide or class divide etc etc, it strikes me that you won't fix it by having everyone pretend there is no divide and legislating for everyone to treat everyone else equally.

need_an_answer

So a LL could potentially be classed as discriminating against groups of people or demographics,But what about the LL's right to choose who rents their property?

I personally didn't set out to have "no DSS" but I now have 2 sets of tenants who claim benefit,it's working well at the moment in both cases but I can completely understand the freedom of choice.

When my tenants took up their tenancies they were both able to meet the required payments,circumstance led them to needing to claim housing benefit later.

Whilst I have had no issues I will be the first to admit that given the choice I would not start a tenancy with a housing benefit claimant if in my mind a different more suitable candidate came along

Is it not human nature for someone to opt for the easiest path(or perceived easiest) in the beginning if that is available.

All that could happen going forward is the LL will say "I will consider your application" but then be mindful that a different set of tenants in different circumstances may take priority when the final decision is made.

No different in my mind to a job application where the choice is made on the candidates presented.

Tirian

Speaking from experience as both a renter and a landlord, I think this has some way to go before there is a clarity for anyone on either side.

One thing to bear in mind is that the letting agent is often simply carrying out the instructions of the landlord, whom they are the agent of and have a duty to carry out the instructions of to the best of their ability even if they don't like it.

The letting agent in this case is in fact the letting agent we initially used to rent out our house. We did not specify "no dss" and our tenant, who has been in the place for 6 years, definitely received housing and other benefits for some years and possibly still does. Frankly I don't care - she's paid the rent mostly on time, and on the odd occasion not she's always let us know in advance and paid the rest a few days later.

The second thing to bear in mind is that if this does result in a court decision, it will go a lot further than letting agents and landlords. Technically we are in breach of our BTL mortgage conditions, which don't permit rental of the property to anyone in receipt of benefits. I took the decision that this term was unenforceable as drafted, and have ignored it - technically it would prevent anyone receiving child benefit from renting the house. But it's in there. And no doubt there are plenty of landlords who would not be comfortable taking that decision.

To "needananswer" - benefit recipients can actually have more stable incomes, particularly if they don't have a job that they could lose at any minute. It's not so clear cut really.

I rented while on benefits once. I was searching for work and had just finished teacher training. I applied for JSA and housing benefit, and paid the rent out of my overdraft. The JSA came through quite quickly but the housing benefit ... I was actually three months into my job in a different city, after two months job searching when I finally got that through, and it was only after a several weeks of calling the council every day to chase it up. So I do appreciate very much why some landlords are reluctant to rent to people who rely on housing benefit.

Comms69

bowlhead99 wrote: »

I'm not surprised they are reluctant either. If you're not allowed to advertise for 'no DSS', one solution to the risk of getting a poor or benefits-dependent person as your tenant is to spend money doing up your property to a high standard and then try to let it out at high rates that those on benefits or DSS money will be less likely to afford; and carry out expensive and invasive background checks and referencing of everyone who wants the property.

That probably isn't going to help those who do not work, work part time or are in low paid employment in terms of giving them lots of choice of affordable housing. If a major perceived problem is a rich / poor divide or a gender divide or class divide etc etc, it strikes me that you won't fix it by having everyone pretend there is no divide and legislating for everyone to treat everyone else equally.

Indeed. it's short sighted. Ok as a benefits claimant you wont be upset by 'No DSS' signs on the door. But you'll still be rejected, because you claim benefits. It's just a waste of time on everyone part - just to save some feelings.

need_an_answer wrote: »

So a LL could potentially be classed as discriminating against groups of people or demographics,But what about the LL's right to choose who rents their property?

I personally didn't set out to have "no DSS" but I now have 2 sets of tenants who claim benefit,it's working well at the moment in both cases but I can completely understand the freedom of choice.

When my tenants took up their tenancies they were both able to meet the required payments,circumstance led them to needing to claim housing benefit later.

Whilst I have had no issues I will be the first to admit that given the choice I would not start a tenancy with a housing benefit claimant if in my mind a different more suitable candidate came along

Is it not human nature for someone to opt for the easiest path(or perceived easiest) in the beginning if that is available.

All that could happen going forward is the LL will say "I will consider your application" but then be mindful that a different set of tenants in different circumstances may take priority when the final decision is made.

No different in my mind to a job application where the choice is made on the candidates presented.

Absolutely. the LL can still reject on that basis, but now everyone wastes time viewing and applying. When the reality is someone claiming benefits and looking for a property to rent is probably under time pressure just to get somewhere!