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

AdrianC

pinklady21 wrote: »

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!

pinklady21 wrote: »

3 weeks.
Total of 15 enquiries so far.
4 of those from people in employment.

Sounds like it's the wrong property in the wrong area.

buglawton

ACG wrote: »

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.

Once you've got your commission the borrower is the lenders problem not yours. Bully for you.

Blackpool_Saver

No such thing as DSS, hopefully they bring this new law in then people won't be allowed to use that dated term any longer

Comms69

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

No such thing as DSS, hopefully they bring this new law in then people won't be allowed to use that dated term any longer

I think that's far to simplistic.


No-one can be (nor should they be) forced to let to a certain type of tenant.


Being upfront about it seems perfectly reasonable.


The issue is of course when the state tries to step in to fix some 'unfairness'.


For example, the protected characteristics. - should people discriminate based upon gender, race or sexuality? No, ofcourse not.


But some ignorant people do. Telling them they cant say that doesn't stop them thinking it. Doesn't fix the problem; it's literally sweeping it under the rug.


I'd rather not rent from a bigot, but how would I know? This is ultimately the same thing. Benefit claimants still wont get the property they want. And if the law compels it, then what kind of LL would they really have?


Imagine compelling a racist to let a property to whatever skin colour they find offensive. Would those tenants be treated with any decency? And conversely how would they feel paying rent to a bigot; or if they're on state support - how would you feel knowing that your tax is paying of his mortgage?

Blackpool_Saver

Yes it is simplistic, but I was just referring to the term DSS and that it shows how far behind the letting laws and attitudes are in this country.

No, LL's should not be forced to let to a certain type of tenant. BUT there are different types of benefit tenant, and different types of benefits. The problem is that they all get lumped into one, that is where the problem lies. People who are too ill to work, should not be treated the same as the people who do not want to work, or carers for example.

We need to bring the tenancy laws up to date to reflect the different society that we live in today, and the fact that people use the term DSS shows that we are STILL not doing that.
Would I not like to rent from a bigot/racist/gender phobe? Well that depends if you had to have direct dealings with them, usually there is an agent between the tenant and the owner, and sometimes that is a good thing.

I know I am paying my LL's mortgage, I also know they are lucky to have me, I pay promptly, have improved the property and rarely call in for repairs.....

Comms69

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

Yes it is simplistic, but I was just referring to the term DSS and that it shows how far behind the letting laws and attitudes are in this country. - I disagree. Letting laws should not compel anyone to let their property. As for attitudes, that's a moral point and as I said a law doesn't change those

No, LL's should not be forced to let to a certain type of tenant. BUT there are different types of benefit tenant, and different types of benefits. - I know. But it's still ultimately a VOLUNTARY arrangement between two independent parties. The problem is that they all get lumped into one, that is where the problem lies. People who are too ill to work, should not be treated the same as the people who do not want to work, or carers for example. - Why not? I'm not being difficult. I think people should be able to rent or buy. And there are difficult circumstances in life. But why should anyone be compelled to treat a perspective tenant differently?

We need to bring the tenancy laws up to date to reflect the different society that we live in today - Why? What laws? What do you expect it to achieve? I've set out my case above. A law doesn't change an attitude. , and the fact that people use the term DSS shows that we are STILL not doing that.
Would I not like to rent from a bigot/racist/gender phobe? Well that depends if you had to have direct dealings with them, usually there is an agent between the tenant and the owner, and sometimes that is a good thing. - You're incorrect. the agent is not in between the two. The agent is employed by the landlord. In any case, you'd be pleased to be paying off their mortgage? Do you think that the landlord would be prompt with repairs?

I know I am paying my LL's mortgage, I also know they are lucky to have me, I pay promptly, have improved the property and rarely call in for repairs.....

And what if, deep down they are sexist (I use that as your signature alludes)? Would you still feel morally comfortable to be working hard and paying off they're mortgage?

SmashedAvacado

The criteria that should be looked at is affordability and track record.

I know someone on housing benefit with a first class history of paying rent. No arrears, no late payments, treated the property perfectly. She struggled to find anywhere to move to because agents and landlords had an informal / formal blanket ban - despite this being potentially discriminatory as already discussed.

The problem for landlords is not so much in relation to the rent payments, but also in relation to removal of the tenant if you want to sell. it can take an age, and if the tenant is on housing benefit, even if you were happy to take them, they will struggle to find anywhere to move to which means you have to go through the eviction process which makes their position worse.

Mela322

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Sorry, but I had to laugh, that is really not the worst case scenario for most people who find themselves struggle to pay rent! You are very fortunate.

The thing is...you never know what tenants have when they may come into problems paying rent. You can have a very well paid job that you lose but have a caravan or somewhere else to go. Yes, fortunate but there are many scenarios as to why a tenant may not be able to pay rent. They may have been well off or not so well off.

My priority is paying bills before pleasure and worked our way up from a little tent to a nice caravan. Well, it's ok, nothing special and quite old and wouldn't really be the best option for a large family. But if it was ever the only option, it would be used. It would also save our landlord a headache and a financial cost at evicting a tenant just so they can be housed by their local council.

If you find that funny, laugh away but we take our finances seriously.

silvercar

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

No such thing as DSS, hopefully they bring this new law in then people won't be allowed to use that dated term any longer

You could call anyone that receives child benefit or the winter fuel allowance as being "on benefits" if you want to take the phrase literally.

Cakeguts

I think the difficult is that there is at present no way to tell if someone claiming housing benefit is someone down on their luck or someone who has been evicted from social housing for anti social behaviour in a different town.