Landlords who say 'no DSS' breaking equality laws

moneyistooshorttomention

Tirian wrote: »

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.

.

Well - actually if anyone in receipt of something called "benefits" by some people?/everyone? fell under that - then technically-speaking I presume pensioners who get some or all of their income from State Pension might be classified by some as in receipt of "benefits".

Pension is "pension" and not "benefits" - but there are some that keep trying to mis-name State Pension as "benefits".:cool:

*****

I do follow this woman's logic that something that disproportionately affects a group of people is suffering "indirect discrimination" and can well understand why she is getting angry about it - now that I know I'd be in that position if I applied for some jobs (if for a very different reason).


Discrimination is still discrimination - be it direct or indirect.

It looks as if the most appropriate place for pressure to be applied to stop this though is via a law forbidding mortgage companies discriminating this way in the first place - and thus forcing landlords/ladies to do so.

Comms69

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Well - actually if anyone in receipt of something called "benefits" by some people?/everyone? fell under that - then technically-speaking I presume pensioners who get some or all of their income from State Pension might be classified by some as in receipt of "benefits".

Pension is "pension" and not "benefits" - but there are some that keep trying to mis-name State Pension as "benefits".:cool:

*****

I do follow this woman's logic that something that disproportionately affects a group of people is suffering "indirect discrimination" and can well understand why she is getting angry about it - now that I know I'd be in that position if I applied for some jobs (if for a very different reason)<<<<


Discrimination is still discrimination - be it direct or indirect.

It looks as if the most appropriate place for pressure to be applied to stop this though is via a law forbidding mortgage companies discriminating this way in the first place - and thus forcing landlords/ladies to do so.

Discrimination is only illegal in some very specific circumstances.....

silvercar

Tirian wrote: »

Well, like I say I can only go on our experience. We're renting out a single smallish property so might not be reflective of everyone - but when we've searched for landlord insurance on the comparison sites, they've never even ask a question about whether the tenant is in receipt of benefits.

We're also only doing buildings insurance/legal cover, not contents or rental gap cover etc. I imagine that, particularly if you're looking for the latter, you might get asked some additional questions.

From Direct Line landlord insurance:

"at least one of the individuals who have signed the tenancy agreement must be either employed, in full time education, retired or in receipt of a disability benefit at the point of signing the tenancy agreement."

bowlhead99

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Well - actually if anyone in receipt of something called "benefits" by some people?/everyone? fell under that - then technically-speaking I presume pensioners who get some or all of their income from State Pension might be classified by some as in receipt of "benefits".

Pension is "pension" and not "benefits" - but there are some that keep trying to mis-name State Pension as "benefits".:cool:

Well, state pension *is* a contributions-based benefit, so there. By contrast an occupational or personal pension is a form of employment compensation or investment income.

Of course those who don't like DSS tenants because of some of the reprobates they saw on a nightmare tenant TV show, might be more comfortable with having a pension-funded OAP as a tenant. For example, older people are maybe less likely to skip town than those who are young and excitable and chasing job opportunities or running from the loan sharks. They may be less likely to bring the consequences of their drug habit or predilection for car theft back to their front door. And if you go round to politely enquire why the rent is late, they are easier to knock out if they start any trouble.

Blatant generalisations of course, but how else can you come up with policy other than by making assumptions and generalisations about how people might behave and the impact on different parts of society.

Tirian

silvercar wrote: »

From Direct Line landlord insurance:

"at least one of the individuals who have signed the tenancy agreement must be either employed, in full time education, retired or in receipt of a disability benefit at the point of signing the tenancy agreement."

Most benefit recipients are employed.

Saying that you won't accept someone who isn't employed isn't even nearly the same as saying that you won't accept anyone who is in receipt of benefits.

teddysmum

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Well, state pension *is* a contributions-based benefit, so there. By contrast an occupational or personal pension is a form of employment compensation or investment income.

Of course those who don't like DSS tenants because of some of the reprobates they saw on a nightmare tenant TV show, might be more comfortable with having a pension-funded OAP as a tenant. For example, older people are maybe less likely to skip town than those who are young and excitable and chasing job opportunities or running from the loan sharks. They may be less likely to bring the consequences of their drug habit or predilection for car theft back to their front door. And if you go round to politely enquire why the rent is late, they are easier to knock out if they start any trouble.

Blatant generalisations of course, but how else can you come up with policy other than by making assumptions and generalisations about how people might behave and the impact on different parts of society.

Someone's work age benefit could be withdrawn for a number of reasons, making them unable to pay , but a person's pension income is stable.

Cakeguts

This "discrimination" thing is going to be very difficult to prove unless all rents are standardised in cost. For example someone who is claiming housing benefit but can't afford to rent in a prime area might say that they can't access good quality rented accommodation in an expensive area but at the same time they could access good quality rented accommodation in a non prime area but don't want to. Who defines the difference in areas? One of the reason why some people can't afford to rent in a "nice" area is because the housing benefit doesn't cover enough of the rent. On the other hand why should ordinary home owners and tax payers fund people who don't get enough in housing benefit to live in an area that most of them can't afford to live in?

Comms69

Cakeguts wrote: »

This "discrimination" thing is going to be very difficult to prove unless all rents are standardised in cost. For example someone who is claiming housing benefit but can't afford to rent in a prime area might say that they can't access good quality rented accommodation in an expensive area but at the same time they could access good quality rented accommodation in a non prime area but don't want to. Who defines the difference in areas? One of the reason why some people can't afford to rent in a "nice" area is because the housing benefit doesn't cover enough of the rent. On the other hand why should ordinary home owners and tax payers fund people who don't get enough in housing benefit to live in an area that most of them can't afford to live in?

The discrimination, even in this case, was only about the advertising. NOT about who the landlord actually chooses to let to.

Murphybear

hazyjo wrote: »

A lot of the time, it's the LL's insurance policy that restricts them anyway. Will they change that rule with insurers too?

So what happens when someone is working, passes referencing etc, moves in and suddenly finds themselves out of a job. They will most likely claim JSA thus flouting the no DSS rule.

FBaby

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.

You don't care because rent is being paid, surely you would care if she said that she couldn't pay because her benefits have been cut and there is nothing she can do about it and won't move until she's evicted.

The main reason why so many LL refuse to rent to new tenants on benefits is purely due to risk and for most benefits (indeed not pension) that risk is higher than someone losing their job and not being able to get another one soon enough. It's a decision based on business acumen, not fairness.