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

Red-Squirrel_2

Mela322 wrote: »

You are who I thought about when I mentioned the blanket ban on all benefits. I actually didn't know the complete reason for your decision. We get tax credits but if we ever got to a point where we thought we might struggle paying the rent, we would give notice and move before we got to that point. What sucks more is even after the first bad tenants, you still gave another tenant a chance.

It’s easier said than done in reality though, if the reason you are struggling is job loss, where will you move to? You won’t pass referencing somewhere new with no wages coming in, and the fees for a new tenancy are a lot harder to find if money has become tight.

I don’t judge anybody for finding themselves in a mess, it’s the whole housing system that’s wrong.

silvercar

Murphybear wrote:

I'm still waiting for a response to my question "what happens if working tenants lose their job and have to claim HB". You can't ask a tenant to leave just because they've lost their job and the insurance company wouldn't like them

I know that in the case of Direct line for business (their landlord insurance product), they require the tenant to be in employment at the time the tenancy starts.

Pixie5740

Why is there any need to mention anything about benefits in the advert? It sounds as if the rental property is targeted at people earning at least average incomes so why do you think low income households would even bother applying? On the off chance that someone with a combined income of say 12,000 GBP applies you could simply fail them on affordability which is something you arbitrarily decide on anyway.

Red-Squirrel_2

G_M wrote: »

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

But, women are far more likely to be in receipt of benefits, as are disabled people.

Pixie5740

G_M wrote: »

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

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

Cakeguts

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Why is there any need to mention anything about benefits in the advert? It sounds as if the rental property is targeted at people earning at least average incomes so why do you think low income households would even bother applying? On the off chance that someone with a combined income of say 12,000 GBP applies you could simply fail them on affordability which is something you arbitrarily decide on anyway.

Because apparently they have already been asking about it because it doesn't say anything about not accepting housing benefit. The people asking don't seem to bother about the fact that they can't afford it.



It seems that people who are not claiming housing benefit can work out which houses they can't afford to rent but some people who are claiming housing benefit can't so what does that say about the housing benefit system or in fact all of the benefits?

Pixie5740

Cakeguts wrote: »

Because apparently they have already been asking about it because it doesn't say anything about not accepting housing benefit. The people asking don't seem to bother about the fact that they can't afford it.



It seems that people who are not claiming housing benefit can work out which houses they can't afford to rent but some people who are claiming housing benefit can't so what does that say about the housing benefit system or in fact all of the benefits?

How do you or the OP know that the applicant can't afford the rent? Just because the prospective tenants is in receipt of housing benefit doesn't necessarily mean the property is not affordable to them. I know the OP has said the rent is greater than the LHA rate but the housing benefit might only be one element of the applicant's income. Many recipients of housing benefit are in work. The OP could be missing a trick and missing out on a really good tenant.

One sure fire way of stopping those in receipt of any housing benefit from phoning up would be to get a tenant lined up PDQ. Why has the OP not found a more "suitable" tenant yet?

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

But, women are far more likely to be in receipt of benefits, as are disabled people.

Says a lot about society and values

Linton

I find the OPs attitude appalling. If people cant afford her luxury accommodation and cant meet her credit check requirements why explicitly ban them? The claim that its for their own good is disenguous at best. Some benefits are not means tested - I cannot see any justification for stopping the possibly disabled people who claim them who want somewhere to live. The dangerous part of the public banning is that it provides a green light to all other landlords to do the same - some of us can remember the "no dogs or Irish" of 50 years ago.


"No DWP" may not be illegal but it should be.

pinklady21

Here is a prime example of the type of enquiry I am receiving:

Do u take dss? if u do, can I have a look?

I then respond politely along the lines of:

"The LHA for the size of property in the area is X. The rent for this house is Y. Can you advise me how you will fund the shortfall?"

There is then total silence from the other end.
The rent is clearly listed in the advert, so I cannot fathom why anyone on a (presumably) low income would think the property would be affordable.

I sometimes drool at wildly expensive houses on the internet, but wouldn't bother wasting my time enquiring about them as I don't have the cash to buy 'em!