Blanket ban on renting to tenants on benefits in rental property ads - lawful?

pinklady21

Writing as a landlord, interested in other points of view.

I am currently advertising a property to rent. In my view it is not suitable for housing benefit tenants for a number of reasons:

1. My insurer will only allow me to rent to working people

2. The Local Housing Allowance is about half the rent I am asking making it unaffordable for a benefit claimant unless there is additional income from somewhere, and I do not wish to entertain the hassle of possible rent arrears due to the tenant being unable to pay the rent.

3. When selecting a tenant, I seek employer's references and do a credit check, and it would be unlikely any potential tenant on benefits would pass the checks.

But - I understand that a court ruling this year on indirect discrimination may make it problematic to set out a blanket ban eg "No DWP claimaints" in any advertising.

https://www.anthonygold.co.uk/latest/blog/shelters-new-campaign-on-refusal-of-benefit-tenants-and-discrimination/

I don't want to raise the hopes of any benefit claimant that I may consider them as a tenant, but I don't wish to be accused of unlawful discrimination either.
What do other landlords do when advertising?
TY

ACG

Wow!
I do not think I have read a post that sounds so elitest/condescending in one go.

"I do not want to build their hopes up"
"it would be unlikely any potential tenant on benefits would pass the checks." - Why? Would they get a negative employers reference? Or are you assuming everyone on benefits has bad credit?

Believe it or not, as a Mortgage broker who specialises in bad credit, I come across quite a few professionals who have plenty of defaults. In fact I remember doing a Mortgage for someone who earns a 6 figure salary who had 3 defaults and various late payments. Most of my customers are people who messed up their credit at uni but have gone on to have high paying jobs.

G_M

ACG - your response is a bit harsh!

OP asked a serious question, giving his rationale, and requesting advice.

I think one misunderstanding here is the definition of 'benefits' (a common misunderstanding). OP I suspect is referring to applicants living entirely off benefits rather than those eg with a low-income job topped up with tax credits (or whatever they are now called!). (all 3 of the OP's points make that assumption)

OP - you too have made errors. Read your link again. It's a campaign, not law. It's also, I suspect, not very well researched/written! And in particular I note:

This type of discrimination occurs when I have a policy I apply equally but that policy is particularly discriminatory against a group with a protected characteristic.

It's my understanding that protected characteristics are gender, disability, sexual orientation, race etc.


Correct me if I'm wrong (anyone?) but income source/benefits claims are not protected. Or are they?

AdrianC

pinklady21 wrote: »

The Local Housing Allowance is about half the rent I am asking making it unaffordable for a benefit claimant unless there is additional income from somewhere

Then simply advertise the rent, and let that weed out those who aren't at that end of the market.

and I do not wish to entertain the hassle of possible rent arrears due to the tenant being unable to pay the rent.

You run that risk with any and every tenant, of course.

When selecting a tenant, I seek employer's references and do a credit check, and it would be unlikely any potential tenant on benefits would pass the checks.

There y'go, then.

But - I understand that a court ruling this year on indirect discrimination may make it problematic to set out a blanket ban eg "No DWP claimaints" in any advertising.

So don't. It sounds like your requirements from a tenant are equally likely to apply to non-benefit-recipients who simply are lower down the market.


There's zero point in putting "No DWP" in an ad for an upmarket property. If you were near the LHA rent, had no problematic insurance stipulations, and simply didn't want a benefit-recipient tenant, then it might be a question that you need to ask. As it is, and apart from your market position, it's not your stipulation, anyway.

davidmcn

G_M wrote: »

It's my understanding that protected characteristics are gender, disability, sexual orientation, race etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong (anyone?) but income source/benefits claims are not protected. Or are they?

They're not, but as mentioned in the OP the point is that using that as a criterion risks indirect discrimination against protected characteristics as e.g. disabled people are more likely to be claiming benefits. The article linked to explains all.


(also, I suspect pinklady21 isn't a he!)

Murphybear

pinklady21 wrote: »

Writing as a landlord, interested in other points of view.

I am currently advertising a property to rent. In my view it is not suitable for housing benefit tenants for a number of reasons:

1. My insurer will only allow me to rent to working people

2. The Local Housing Allowance is about half the rent I am asking making it unaffordable for a benefit claimant unless there is additional income from somewhere, and I do not wish to entertain the hassle of possible rent arrears due to the tenant being unable to pay the rent.

3. When selecting a tenant, I seek employer's references and do a credit check, and it would be unlikely any potential tenant on benefits would pass the checks.

But - I understand that a court ruling this year on indirect discrimination may make it problematic to set out a blanket ban eg "No DWP claimaints" in any advertising.

https://www.anthonygold.co.uk/latest/blog/shelters-new-campaign-on-refusal-of-benefit-tenants-and-discrimination/

I don't want to raise the hopes of any benefit claimant that I may consider them as a tenant, but I don't wish to be accused of unlawful discrimination either.
What do other landlords do when advertising?
TY

what will your insurer say when your working tenant loses their job and has to claim housing benefit? Jobs for life aren't guaranteed these days and if someone has been employed for less than 2 years they can be dismissed for no reason (as long as it isn't a protected characteristic).

Tenants can be working and claiming top up benefits. Will your insurer allow you to rent to tenants in this situation? They seem to fulfil the "working tenants" criterion.

Mela322

I understand many landlords will put a blanket ban on any benefits and some only ban housing benefits.

Because we had a tiny amount of housing benefit, we didn't get past several phone inquiries to view properties. We had to make the difficult decision to stop our housing benefit. It was a struggle.

Our history:

solid full time employment
10 years solid rental history (never late, never missed)
Both of us have very high credit rating scores

It's easy to say it's not discrimination but that's exactly how I felt. Landlords are entitled to chose their tenants but I think it's wrong to have a blanket ban. I see time and time again of people that were good at paying their rent and then found themselves in rent arrears asking for help here. It can happen to anybody.

My husband is finally on a better salary so aren't in that position anymore but why not take a look at all applicants before they get to referencing. See the pros and cons of each applicant. We are long term renters that look after the properties we live in. Everything that we ever worked hard for didn't matter and didn't count.

All that being said, it's a personal choice who you allow to live in your property.

pinklady21

Thanks all for the thoughtful replies.
The property is indeed "upmarket" and the rent level is therefore not affordable to someone on benefits income.
I think it would be irresponsible of me to consider a tenant whose income was insufficient for them to be able to afford the rent!
My issue is that I am receiving enquiries asking "Do you accept housing benefit?"
If I am entirely truthful and answer "no", then I risk this being deemed discriminatory. Equally, there is no point in wasting everyone's time, with viewings etc and then turning them down on income grounds.

The issue at stake in the court case earlier this year was one of indirect discrimination, the prospective tenant was female and claimed that as such she was more likely to be claiming benefits and therefore more likely to be discriminated against.
The case was settled out of court, and was not binding, but it does raise an interesting question about what is reasonable and not reasonable for a landlord to put in an advert or to say to a prospective tenant.

Comms69

G_M wrote: »

ACG - your response is a bit harsh!

OP asked a serious question, giving his rationale, and requesting advice.

I think one misunderstanding here is the definition of 'benefits' (a common misunderstanding). OP I suspect is referring to applicants living entirely off benefits rather than those eg with a low-income job topped up with tax credits (or whatever they are now called!). (all 3 of the OP's points make that assumption)

OP - you too have made errors. Read your link again. It's a campaign, not law. It's also, I suspect, not very well researched/written! And in particular I note:


It's my understanding that protected characteristics are gender, disability, sexual orientation, race etc.


Correct me if I'm wrong (anyone?) but income source/benefits claims are not protected. Or are they?

There have been discussions ( though I’m not aware of cases ) where this type of policy can indirectly discriminate ( disproportionately ) women.

G_M

Comms69 wrote: »

There have been discussions ( though I’m not aware of cases ) where this type of policy can indirectly discriminate ( disproportionately ) women.

I'm gonna resist responding as I don't want to get banned quite yet. Or slated. Or pillaried.

ACG

G_M wrote: »

ACG - your response is a bit harsh!

OP asked a serious question, giving his rationale, and requesting advice.

Its pretty rare I disagree with anything you say - this is probably a first.

It is not so much the fact they want to prevent people on benefits from renting the property that bothers me. It is more the fact with how the post is worded. It almost reads like they think their property is too good for the people who claim certain benefits.