Can A Landlord's Mortage Refuse To Rent To A Disabled Person On Benefits But Accept Retired People?

westernpromise

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Thanks, I do understand why, but I don’t believe that a disabled person on benefits represents any higher risk in reality.

In a narrow sense you're probably right - a disabled person on benefits doesn't represent a higher risk than any other person on benefits. However, the view of landlords is that people on benefits do indeed represent a higher risk.
As the survey is based on responses by 8,000 landlords and letting agents, and the landlords' median experience as a landlord is 11.5 years, there is a pretty large body of empirical experience there. And as a result, 52% of landlords won't let to those on housing benefit.

babyblade41

I'm thinking this is all directed at physical disability ? Not many houses are suitable for such disabilities and have to be adapted so very few landlords have these type of properties available.

My situation FWIW , I had a person in one of mine and it was OK , lots of late payments and although we worked together on it and it tickled along year after year , never quite getting to the full 2 months in arrears but it only took a new partner for it to spiral out of control

The HB was paid to me direct but when they had over claimed HB this was then docked off future payments leaving me to try and reclaim off tenant... Bob Hope and No Hope

It took many months, a serious amount of money in arrears, court fees and the clear up afterwards

I''ve now completely finished pretty much. apart from one (Not benefit) and although I would never be in the business again I would always steer away from benefit.

I would just go through candidates and see who was more financially secure, I know still not 100 percent but in my experience all arrears have come from benefit claimants and none from those in stable jobs

I 'm not sure how anyone would prove otherwise .

Also my properties were mortgage free, but I have heard that some lenders on BTL won't allow benefit claimants

My thoughts from 2 friends who are disabled are just as productive as able bodied and have full time jobs and no benefit so I think disabled needs to be taken out as it's not really relevant . just state those on benefit rather than those who are disabled and on benefit

Most disabled would prefer to be working rather than claiming anyway

lisyloo

onwards&upwards wrote: »

After all, anyone can become disabled, or unemployed at any time.

But that doesn’t mean they automatically go onto benefits.
Some of us have taken responsiblility for this (as you say foreseeable) eventuality and taken insurance or made savings for contingency.
A lot of people won’t qualify for benefits on account of a spouse’s income.

Just a reminder that the discrimination was about benefits and not disability.

If you were born that way the you could not have prepared, but anyone able-bodied can financially prepare in a variety of ways for foreseeable events.

Please don’t confuse the disability and benefits.
There are lots of disabled people able to work or not claiming benefits as they are married.

Sorry for your situation.
I appreciate people who face challenges do not need life made more difficult for them.
This has happened because of the move from social housing to private renting and I do believe landlord should retain choice as this is their investment. The most vulnerable should still protected but there isn’t enough social housing.

If you have a lot of your livelihood tied up in rental property would you be willing to be told that you couldn’t choose which individuals you could and could not rent to?
I think if we do this we face having fewer landlords.

onwards&upwards

lisyloo wrote: »

But that doesn’t mean they automatically go onto benefits.
Some of us have taken responsiblility for this (as you say foreseeable) eventuality and taken insurance or made savings for contingency.
A lot of people won’t qualify for benefits on account of a spouse’s income.

Just a reminder that the discrimination was about benefits and not disability.

I don’t think it’s possible to make provision in a way that maintains the same income level for the rest of your life and a similar pension provision for your retirement as you would have had, is it? Certainly not very common.

The discrimination IS about disability. It’s called indirect discrimination.

Here’s an example, if I’m renting out a house and I put on the advert ‘no wheelchair users’ that is DIRECT discrimination. Clear, straightforward, easy to understand.

If I put ‘no DSS’ then, because people with disabilities are statistically much more likely to be in receipt of housing benefit than able bodied people, I am still discriminating against them, it’s just less obvious. I am also discriminating against women, as single parents are much more likely to be on housing benefit and the vast majority of them are female.

onwards&upwards

westernpromise wrote: »

In a narrow sense you're probably right - a disabled person on benefits doesn't represent a higher risk than any other person on benefits. However, the view of landlords is that people on benefits do indeed represent a higher risk.
As the survey is based on responses by 8,000 landlords and letting agents, and the landlords' median experience as a landlord is 11.5 years, there is a pretty large body of empirical experience there. And as a result, 52% of landlords won't let to those on housing benefit.

I get that lots of landlords won’t and I believe they all think it’s totally reasonable, I just don’t think access to safe and secure housing should be based on the prejudices of private landlords and mortgage lenders!

Comms69

onwards&upwards wrote: »

I get that lots of landlords won’t and I believe they all think it’s totally reasonable, I just don’t think access to safe and secure housing should be based on the prejudices of private landlords and mortgage lenders!

I disagree 100%.


The state can pick up the pieces

lisyloo

onwards&upwards wrote: »

I don’t think it’s possible to make provision in a way that maintains the same income level for the rest of your life and a similar pension provision for your retirement as you would have had, is it? Certainly not very common.

It’s common in some jobs/industries to have PHI - permanent health insurance, which covers your income until retirement, certainly in larger organisations (it legally Maxs at 75% otherwise no one would have an incentive to return to work).
Anyone who has a working spouse is unlikely to qualify for benefits and will just have to manage on less.
So a lot of people (most of the married or partnered population) would manage on less and not qualify for benefits.

The discrimination IS about disability. It’s called indirect discrimination.

Here’s an example, if I’m renting out a house and I put on the advert ‘no wheelchair users’ that is DIRECT discrimination. Clear, straightforward, easy to understand.

If I put ‘no DSS’ then, because people with disabilities are statistically much more likely to be in receipt of housing benefit than able bodied people, I am still discriminating against them, it’s just less obvious. I am also discriminating against women, as single parents are much more likely to be on housing benefit and the vast majority of them are female.

Ok, I get that and thanks for explaining.
If it’s made illegal do you think landlords would suddenly have a change of heart or take down the “no DSS” and simply refuse people they perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be higher risk?

If I were a landlord I’d like to have the ability to discriminate against people who are higher risk (have less income).
Does that count as indirect discrimination?

If I wasn’t allowed to discriminate against people who put my own livelihood at risk then I would not want to become a landlord.
I am not a landlord but the point I’m making is that if you take away choice and discincentivise people from the business then you can’t expect them to provide housing as a service.

I don’t think it makes me a bad person to want to protect my own family and my own livelihood (with clear justification I,e, purely based on affordability), but from what you are saying this might be indirect discrimination against poor people.
I’m a little confused genuinely as any business that puts a price on anything is discriminating against poorer people.

MEM62

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Where is the evidence for this (real, not anecdotal)?

Good question. The fact that some insurers and mortgage companies won't offer products where benefit tenants are involved will be based on underwriting risk assessment and we would not have access to that data on which that decision is made.

Based on personal experience, benefits tenants a much higher risk. Damages and post tenancy clean up costs are higher, issues with neighbours and the use of communal facilities more frequent and I have even had long running payment issues as a result of Council department inefficiencies - which, in one case, ended up with the Council taking me to court to recover overpayment of housing benefit. That hearing lasted about 30 seconds before the magistrate threw it out.

Cakeguts

Can I suggest that people have a look on Rightmove and look to see how may rentals say no DSS these days.



Some people are completely unrealistic about applying for properties which they can't actually afford whether they claim Universal Credit or whether they are working. No landlord is going to accept someone who can't afford a property. That is not descrimination that is good working practice.

onwards&upwards

lisyloo wrote: »

It’s common in some jobs/industries to have PHI - permanent health insurance, which covers your income until retirement, certainly in larger organisations (it legally Maxs at 75% otherwise no one would have an incentive to return to work).
Anyone who has a working spouse is unlikely to qualify for benefits and will just have to manage on less.
So a lot of people (most of the married or partnered population) would manage on less and not qualify for benefits.



Ok, I get that and thanks for explaining.
If it’s made illegal do you think landlords would suddenly have a change of heart or take down the “no DSS” and simply refuse people they perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be higher risk?


I’m a little confused genuinely as any business that puts a price on anything is discriminating against poorer people.

Not all disability related benefits are means tested, although housing benefit is, but even with a working spouse you can claim PIP.

People said that about the old ‘no blacks, no irish’ discrimination. It’s not a good enough reason to allow discrimination to keep happening with the full support of the law and the state.

Being poor is not a protected characteristic.