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

davidmcn

westernpromise wrote: »

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.

Did that start happening in Scotland when fees were outlawed a few years ago?

westernpromise

K80_Black wrote: »

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'.

As I said in post #42, The risk is that the worse off a tenant is, whether on benefits or otherwise, the lower the chance a landlord has of recovering any money from them if they default on the rent or damage the property.

westernpromise

onwards&upwards wrote: »

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

If the tenant can't prove there will actually be any rent paid the property won't be let.

The property I let is worth around £900k to £1 million. The idea that anyone with a £1 million property to let would let it to someone who can't prove they can actually afford to rent it is for the birds. For a net return of 1 to 2%, it's actually safer and simpler to leave it empty or turn into an Air B'n'B.

K80_Black

westernpromise wrote: »

As I said in post #42, The risk is that the worse off a tenant is, whether on benefits or otherwise, the lower the chance a landlord has of recovering any money from them if they default on the rent or damage the property.

You have said a lot of things, including "anyone with a job is a better bet than someone on benefits, because the former may or may not have any money, but the latter definitely hasn't."

Why do you assume that I have no money because I am too unwell to work?

expatfred

I've got properties rented out.



Why would I want a higher risk tenant when I could have young london professionals? It's up to the council to provide social housing for people on benefits.



Although mortgage free my responsibility is to my houses and maximising their yield.

K80_Black

00ec25 wrote: »

why are you unable to see that property letting a a business risk?
The first rule of a business is to know the risks it faces and to mitigate those where possible. Read post #63 again, it is a perfect example of: know your business.

Why should i go to extensive costs (time and money) in working out if you a) have personal money over and above your "income" in the form of (removable) benefits which you could use to fund a shortfall in your "income" and/or b) the personal integrity not to run away from your debts if your income ends

I am fully aware of the risks. As I said in my first post on this thread - to me, someone with disabilities on benefits which will not be looked at for many years is lower risk than someone in work who can be let go.

Yes, benefits are removable - but so is any income. It's no more effort to check the bank statements of someone disabled than someone working, and personal integrity to not run away from debts is also not something only applicable to disabled people.

My point is and has always been that those who are disabled and on benefits are in a significantly different position to those who are job seekers. The only way I can get my benefits sanctioned is if my disability magically disappears. I have the same income as someone in a fairly normal job, not well below minimum wage. Yet the majority of landlords won't rent to me.

This is incredibly frustrating - there are times I've been rejected for being 'on benefits' despite the fact that I can offer positive references, rent in advance, a guarantor... Any hoops they chuck in front of me, I can usually jump through. I still find renting incredibly difficult because I think a lot of landlords just don't understand the significant differences between the unemployed and the long term disabled.

-taff

It's not a private landlords place to provide conscience free social housing. they want to make money. There's more risk in letting to those on benefits [or more perceived risk].
Doesn't matter if you don't like, or dont agree with it. It's not illegal to choose someone who looks better on paper than someone who doesn't. It's not illegal to decide not to take a risk on someone who is on benefits.
If you would like to crusade for this perceived in justice, or help people take other people to court for this indirect discrimination, off you go.
My parents rented a house they owned to someon on benefits, they trashed it. Once bitten, twice shy. Personal experience will win out every time over what the probabilities are.
Were I to rent a house, I also wouldn't rent to someone on benefits versus a retired couple who are not likely to smash the place up. That's the balance of probabilities. I also wouldn't be telling a prospective tenant that I'm not going to choose them. I just wouldn't choose them.
There's never been a shortage of people looking to rent who will provide proof of income, whichever way it's asked for, so your scenario is not likely.

K80_Black

How is someone disabled and on benefits not due to be looked at until 2015 more high risk than an employed person who could commit gross misconduct tomorrow? - oh yeah, it's just 'perceived' risk. Have your prejudice then.

I know it's not illegal, never said it should be made illegal, I'm just pointing out that it's bonkers to treat everyone on benefits as if they're the same.

csgohan4

K80_Black wrote: »

I am fully aware of the risks. As I said in my first post on this thread - to me, someone with disabilities on benefits which will not be looked at for many years is lower risk than someone in work who can be let go.

Yes, benefits are removable - but so is any income. It's no more effort to check the bank statements of someone disabled than someone working, and personal integrity to not run away from debts is also not something only applicable to disabled people.

My point is and has always been that those who are disabled and on benefits are in a significantly different position to those who are job seekers. The only way I can get my benefits sanctioned is if my disability magically disappears. I have the same income as someone in a fairly normal job, not well below minimum wage. Yet the majority of landlords won't rent to me.

This is incredibly frustrating - there are times I've been rejected for being 'on benefits' despite the fact that I can offer positive references, rent in advance, a guarantor... Any hoops they chuck in front of me, I can usually jump through. I still find renting incredibly difficult because I think a lot of landlords just don't understand the significant differences between the unemployed and the long term disabled.

Nothing personal but it's just business, not every LL goes through your personal life and micro manages their agents in choosing their tenants. If it goes wrong it really does cost the LL alot of money and unfortunately you would be a higher risk renting to than someone with a job.

Anyone in a job can be let go yes, but LL can only take things face value, otherwise they will never let to anyone. Someone has a job vs someone on benefits, most likely the former will be accepted.

Also note LL insurers some do not accept those on benefits and some lenders don't accept on benefits, so not entirely the LL's choice.

If your complaining about the LL not accepting, complain about the amount of people using RTB and reducing the social housing stock

Private LL can choose who to rent to , with or without a reason

seven-day-weekend

onwards&upwards wrote: »

That person with the 35k salary could be up to their eyeballs in debt and if they lose their job will just go bankrupt and you won’t see a penny.

There is no risk free tenant.

Where do all the landlords who turn down disabled people on benefits think they should all live?

Do you think that this is a problem for the private landlord? They are not social housing providers.