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

onwards&upwards

gary83 wrote: »

It's not a private landlords responsibility to fulfill other people's basic human rights is it though? Why isn't your anger or frustration directed at the government for not providing adequate social housing?

Well it is! They should be making it clearer that this kind of discrimination is illegal and not letting people get away with it?

Cakeguts

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Well it is! They should be making it clearer that this kind of discrimination is illegal and not letting people get away with it?

It isn't descrimination to make a business decision not to let to a tenant who the landlord thinks can't afford the rent. Tenants getting into debt isn't a great idea either.



It is up to social landlords to house tenants who need cheaper rents and much more secure accommodation.


I am not sure who is supposed to house the tenants who have been evicted for non payment of rent or antisocial behaviour from social housing?

babyblade41

OP, you really are seeing things from one side of the coin. Although I'm retired , why , when I was a FT/LL should it be my sole responsibility to take you on as a tenant.

I will do my due diligence and if on benefits I won't be able to. You could tell me all sorts but I can't check .

With employment I can look at all sorts of things from 192 to companies house to social media and tie it all up together

Anyone stating they are on a good salary and I can't find anything about them then again it will be too risky

My work was to provide for a roof over my head, why should I risk that so you can have one over yours??

I ran a business not a charity or a social housing scheme

You need to channel your energies into going to relevant agencies who WILL help you find suitable housing.

As I stated before , if physically disabled none of my properties would have been suitable (very few are) and unless you have absolutely no family whatsoever , you must still have a carer who can help sort you out.

Your anger is aimed at the wrong people , I slept fine at night.. I had to earn my living and was OK with most of my choices (bar 1) and most LL's will feel the same ...it's a dog eat dog world and we are all trying to survive

westernpromise

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Caviar is not a basic human right, a place to live is.

How do you manage to do full credit checks on your tenants?

You make them produce their Experian report to you.

gary83

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Well it is! They should be making it clearer that this kind of discrimination is illegal and not letting people get away with it?

It doesn't matter how much you say something it doesn't make it true, if your upset or frustrated with the lack of suitable housing then blame the government for not building any more social housing or the ridiculous right to buy scheme for selling off what little we do have at a massive discount.

I'm not a landlord but if I, or anybody else buys a property as an investment then they're essentially running a small business if they only have one property that they can provide - supply is limited, if demand is greater for that property it's up to the landlord to choose who they deal with, that's a business decision, how else should it be decided? The landlord should be forced to rent out the property to the first person that says they'll have it? Regardless of the potential risks or costs to the landlord down the line?

The landlord is probably renting out a property to pay for their retirement or to provide for their own families. Even if housing is a basic human right individually none of us has a moral or legal obligation to provide housing to anyone else, regardless of their status.

westernpromise

Incidentally, thinking again about that linked report a page or so back, while it is true that it says 52% of landlords won't accept tenants on benefits, it occurs to me that this does not mean 52% are dodgy.

What it more probably means is that a handful of dodgy tenants default on rent or damage the property, and then get evicted, and go to another landlord. So 10% of tenants on benefits could be a pain and 90% fine, but the 10% will have five different landlords over 10 or 11 years, all of whom swear "never again".

This would be another way to get to 52% of landlords objecting to tenants on benefits even if only a minority of them actually are trouble. The problem of course is you can't know whether you've got a wrong 'un until it's too late.

onwards&upwards

westernpromise wrote: »

You make them produce their Experian report to you.

Wow, do any agree? Very intrusive.

K80_Black

To those who think disabled people on benefits have 'no money' - my amount payable is about the same as a band 4 NHS job. Those with severe disabilities do get a fair amount, if they claim everything they're entitled to. So, don't rent to any pharmacy technicians or similar. They also have 'no money'.

westernpromise

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Wow, do any agree? Very intrusive.

If they want to rent the place they have to. This is why abolishing fees will backfire: landlords still need the same assurance so would be tenants will constantly have to produce an Experian report dated today or similar to prove they aren't debtors.

onwards&upwards

westernpromise wrote: »

If they want to rent the place they have to. This is why abolishing fees will backfire: landlords still need the same assurance so would be tenants will constantly have to produce an Experian report dated today or similar to prove they aren't debtors.

Or tenants will rightly refuse and landlords will have to accept it if they want to fill their properties and get rent paid.