Landlords who say 'no DSS' breaking equality laws

hazyjo

Murphybear wrote: »

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.

No idea, I didn't make the rules


Expect as far as any tenancy agreement goes, it's a bit like if you have a mortgage. Obviously you're given it based on your circumstances at the time. If I lost my job, I wouldn't be able to walk in and get offered the same (or any) mortgage. If it happens after I've got it and I can find a way to pay it, great. If not, repossession.


As for insurance, if it's stated the occupier needs to be working (or other things as mentioned above), it might be invalid if the tenant loses their job. Redundancy might be an exception - would have to look at policies individually as I doubt there's a blanket rule as they don't all request they need to be working, etc.

stator

Pretty soon all the Flight attendants will be paid the same as the Pilots because of 'indirect discrimination'. Most Flight attendants are women, most pilots are men, therefore if you don't pay them the same it's "indirect discrimination"

Mela322

I don't think it should be a blanket ban. What I mean is if the person ticks all the boxes and is in the green for everything, then why shouldn't that person have the opportunity to rent? I'm talking excellent credit, solid rental history with on time payments, solid employment, and excellent references. Those people may only be getting a small amount that is helping them out for a bit.

We were denied so many viewings just for getting a small amount of HB. Everything else was 100% solid. We work hard to build credit making sure all rent and bills are paid on time and look after any property we are in and not doing anything in the house without first getting permission.

Maybe the decision should be made on a case by case situation even to the extent of letting the mortgage or insurance company see the paperwork. I don't know how it would work but for us, we were made to feel unworthy. We no longer get HB and actually had to stop them in order to find a private let, have been in our new house for a year now without any issues. It also makes me think how many very good potential tenants get passed up just because of HB. It does feel like discrimination.

moneyistooshorttomention

Mela322 wrote: »

I don't think it should be a blanket ban. What I mean is if the person ticks all the boxes and is in the green for everything, then why shouldn't that person have the opportunity to rent? I'm talking excellent credit, solid rental history with on time payments, solid employment, and excellent references. Those people may only be getting a small amount that is helping them out for a bit.

We were denied so many viewings just for getting a small amount of HB. Everything else was 100% solid. We work hard to build credit making sure all rent and bills are paid on time and look after any property we are in and not doing anything in the house without first getting permission.

Maybe the decision should be made on a case by case situation even to the extent of letting the mortgage or insurance company see the paperwork. I don't know how it would work but for us, we were made to feel unworthy. We no longer get HB and actually had to stop them in order to find a private let, have been in our new house for a year now without any issues. It also makes me think how many very good potential tenants get passed up just because of HB. It does feel like discrimination.

I can see your point.

Many years ago now I was in privately-rented accommodation and it took me some time to realise that my low pay meant I was entitled to a bit of housing benefit money towards the rent (wishes I'd realised sooner:mad:). So I claimed and got it.

With all the cut-backs in benefit in the 40 odd years since then - I have my doubts whether the exact same financial circumstances would mean I would be due for some or no these days:cool:. But I do wonder whether I would have dared to claim that tiny bit I was due for if there had been this same "Do not pass Go" situation for benefit claimants at that point. Even though I was in a full-time job and a thoroughly responsible person/tenant.:(

D_M_E

OP here - As it's not yet been tested in court this is a wait and see what happens scenario.

It must also apply to all genders, not, as the article implies, only females.

As for LL insurance - such terms banning such applicants don't become obvious until either the premium is paid or the policy wording has been studied, and I wonder if, should a claim be made on a policy containing such a discriminatory clause, would the ombudsman for the insurance industry back the company or the claimant?

Also, as has been pointed out, if the motgage company insert such clauses in their terms and then discover that the mortgage holder is renting against such clause and as a consequence calls in the loan, who would the FCA rule in favour of?

As has also been pointed out, what would be the result if the renter originally met the criteria for renting, but then lost their source of income and as a consequence had to rely on benefits before the end of the contract?

ntil we have a definite court case or FCA decision everyth:mad:ing is just sceculation.

Cakeguts

Mela322 wrote: »

I don't think it should be a blanket ban. What I mean is if the person ticks all the boxes and is in the green for everything, then why shouldn't that person have the opportunity to rent? I'm talking excellent credit, solid rental history with on time payments, solid employment, and excellent references. Those people may only be getting a small amount that is helping them out for a bit.

We were denied so many viewings just for getting a small amount of HB. Everything else was 100% solid. We work hard to build credit making sure all rent and bills are paid on time and look after any property we are in and not doing anything in the house without first getting permission.

Maybe the decision should be made on a case by case situation even to the extent of letting the mortgage or insurance company see the paperwork. I don't know how it would work but for us, we were made to feel unworthy. We no longer get HB and actually had to stop them in order to find a private let, have been in our new house for a year now without any issues. It also makes me think how many very good potential tenants get passed up just because of HB. It does feel like discrimination.

It isn't a blanket ban. It is just that some people want "champagne on beer money." If you don't have enough money to buy a house in an expensive area you wouldn't expect taxpayers to pay for it for you. So why would you if it is rented? It seems from the article that the lady wanted to rent a house in a "good" area. Good often equals expensive. Expensive often equals the local housing allowance not paying enough for that. What landlords fear is people who say they can afford the rent and then don't pay it. It takes so long to evict a non paying tenant through the courts that they will do anything to avoid that.

The problem is that as usual a small number of tenants have spoiled it for the rest.

Mela322

Cakeguts wrote: »

It isn't a blanket ban. It is just that some people want "champagne on beer money." If you don't have enough money to buy a house in an expensive area you wouldn't expect taxpayers to pay for it for you. So why would you if it is rented? It seems from the article that the lady wanted to rent a house in a "good" area. Good often equals expensive. Expensive often equals the local housing allowance not paying enough for that. What landlords fear is people who say they can afford the rent and then don't pay it. It takes so long to evict a non paying tenant through the courts that they will do anything to avoid that.

The problem is that as usual a small number of tenants have spoiled it for the rest.

It is a blanket ban though. When a house is listed to let and it states on the listing that no dss accepted, that is a blanket ban to all. I didn't read the article tbh but wanted to share what we experienced. It also was in poor areas that we were denied viewings. We weren't on full benefits but it didn't matter.

Your second point is valid (not that you need me to validate) but that again is tarring all hb claimants as people who won't pay the rent. That is wrong. That is like me saying to people who own dogs, they must be dog abusers seeing that some dog owners abuse their dogs.

That is why I think it should be a case by case review of each applicant. Your history should be used, we work hard to build that history. For us, if we can't pay, we move but we are old school and we do the right thing. I think the majority of people do the same.

Going back to the lady wanting to rent in an area where that was more expensive. HB will rarely pay the entire rent and all claimants are required to pay a portion of council tax. If her income and benefits calculated to the required amount needed for the rent and she has an excellent reference then simply being on hb should not be the only reason to deny her.

Cakeguts

Mela322 wrote: »

Going back to the lady wanting to rent in an area where that was more expensive. HB will rarely pay the entire rent and all claimants are required to pay a portion of council tax. If her income and benefits calculated to the required amount needed for the rent and she has an excellent reference then simply being on hb should not be the only reason to deny her.

This was the bit I don't understand. If she wanted to rent in a more expensive area and she could afford to make up the rent why was she claiming that amount of housing benefit in the first place? Where was she getting the extra income from?

takman

Mela322 wrote: »

It is a blanket ban though. When a house is listed to let and it states on the listing that no dss accepted, that is a blanket ban to all. I didn't read the article tbh but wanted to share what we experienced. It also was in poor areas that we were denied viewings. We weren't on full benefits but it didn't matter.

I've always assumed that "No DSS" was aimed more at people who didn't work at all and not people who worked and claimed some benefits.

But why exactly did you tell them you would be claiming benefits?. If they asked how you were paying the rent then you could say that you would be using your wages from employment. It wouldn't be lying as you could use any benefits received for all your other bills and expenditure.

FBaby

Maybe the decision should be made on a case by case situation

There is no should/shouldn't be from a tenant perspective when it comes to a business decision from the LL. Once again, it comes down to demand and supply, that's all. If a LL advertise for his property and gets an offer from a police officer and teacher wife, earning much above the HB limit, why would they turned them down and instead agree to rent to a couple where only one is working 24 hours as self-employed and claiming HB and full tax credits? It would make no sense from a business perspective.

If however a LL put his property for rental and gets no interest for weeks, then suddenly gets a call from the agent to say they've got a family with a history of paying rent every month, great references, and claiming some HB at the moment but expected a salary increase in 6 months, then they might very well change their mind on the no DSS statement.

Tenants need to do their research. No point going for a property that is to good to be true likely to get many offers within the first few days if you're on DSS. However, if the agent says no DSS but the property has been available for a month, then it might be worth asking them to contact the LL and ask if they would make an exception. They will more likely to agree/negotiate.