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

seven-day-weekend

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.

No...you just chose a tenant who can be credit checked.

K80_Black

csgohan4 wrote: »

Nothing personal but it's just business

The landlords I've had with this attitude have been the worst. Maybe to you it's just a business, but you're in the business of providing a home for someone. If you show no empathy to the fact that you're renting to an actual real life person I can understand all these stories of picking tenants who don't respect your assets. When you yourself are treated like an asset, it's easy to become blas! about the landlords precious carpet.

Again, and for the last time - how is someone disabled with benefits awarded until 2025 who cannot be sanctioned unless they miraculously recover more high risk than a working person? Oh yeah. They're not. It's just prejudice.

-taff

K80_Black wrote: »

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.

Sorry, I should have quoted the post/s I was replying to, which were the ones which were the ones attempting to make social housing a private landlords responsibility.

csgohan4

K80_Black wrote: »

The landlords I've had with this attitude have been the worst. Maybe to you it's just a business, but you're in the business of providing a home for someone. If you show no empathy to the fact that you're renting to an actual real life person I can understand all these stories of picking tenants who don't respect your assets. When you yourself are treated like an asset, it's easy to become blas! about the landlords precious carpet.

Again, and for the last time - how is someone disabled with benefits awarded until 2025 who cannot be sanctioned unless they miraculously recover more high risk than a working person? Oh yeah. They're not. It's just prejudice.

Still a business and if you put emotion into it, you will be forever giving tenants in arrears extension. it is a business first and foremost and they are NOT a charity.

If you want a free ride, your relatives and friends may oblige. Plenty of threads on here where LL was less strict with tenants and got taken for ride with huge arrears and having to evict.

When I rented, I expect nothing less, Know your rights and use them if necessary and not be forced to renew a tenancy on a rolling contract. Never saw LL and never cared, as long as I paid the rent on time and had a roof over my head.

In terms of wear and tear and damages, that's what the deposit protection scheme is for, if there are any disputes

Again as mentioned, how does it matter if LL chooses not to rent to those with benefits, their choice, especially if they do not put 'no benefits' on the advert.

you can't force Ll to rent to those on benefits.

LL adverts I have seen also say no to CHildren, pets, Smokers, Couples, is that discrimination as well? Or perhaps personal preference like choosing which food to eat?

If you want to blame someone, blame the Government and the RTB scheme

davidmcn

csgohan4 wrote: »

LL adverts I have seen also say no to Children, pets, Smokers, Couples, is that discrimination as well?

Depends whether they bring into play any of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act. Children might be indirect sex discrimination, given that female tenants are more likely to be caring for kids. Can't see that the others are relevant.

K80_Black

csgohan4 wrote: »

Again as mentioned, how does it matter if LL chooses not to rent to those with benefits, their choice, especially if they do not put 'no benefits' on the advert.

you can't force Ll to rent to those on benefits.

LL adverts I have seen also say no to CHildren, pets, Smokers, Couples, is that discrimination as well? Or perhaps personal preference like choosing which food to eat?

If you want to blame someone, blame the Government and the RTB scheme

It matters because the majority of landlords go down this route, which severely limits the options of disabled people - who will already have certain things they need to find in a suitable property. It makes finding housing nearly impossible.

Social housing is often not suited to disabled people - we have a vast range of difficulties, both mental and physical - living in estates or tower blocks with the long term unemployed (who tend to be the people who get social housing) is just not suitable.

I know I can't force landlords to rent to anyone. I'm not trying to. I'm asking why they choose to discriminate against the disabled, who are less of a risk than people in employment - and it seems the only answer I'm getting is 'because we can'.

csgohan4

K80_Black wrote: »

It matters because the majority of landlords go down this route, which severely limits the options of disabled people - who will already have certain things they need to find in a suitable property. It makes finding housing nearly impossible.

Social housing is often not suited to disabled people - we have a vast range of difficulties, both mental and physical - living in estates or tower blocks with the long term unemployed (who tend to be the people who get social housing) is just not suitable.

I know I can't force landlords to rent to anyone. I'm not trying to. I'm asking why they choose to discriminate against the disabled, who are less of a risk than people in employment - and it seems the only answer I'm getting is 'because we can'.

Have you considered the other reason is that if your physically disabled you may want adaptations which social housing is more likely to grant. A LL is not going to make adaptation at their own cost, then needing to remove them for the next tenant.

Don't neglect the personal choice, you choose your specific brand of car, or clothing because you can as well.

Again still doesn't matter as it is not Private LL duty to provide disabled housing at their cost. Private LL can do what ever they want with their house and choose who to rent to.

They can choose to rent to professionals only, is that discriminatory to those who work in supermarkets stacking shelves? Maybe but they can

K80_Black

csgohan4 wrote: »

If you want a free ride, your relatives and friends may oblige.

And I'm sorry, I simply can't let this go. How is me asking to pay the same rent as anyone else 'asking for a free ride'?

K80_Black

csgohan4 wrote: »

Have you considered the other reason is that if your physically disabled you may want adaptations which social housing is more likely to grant. A LL is not going to make adaptation at their own cost, then needing to remove them for the next tenant.

Don't neglect the personal choice, you choose your specific brand of car, or clothing because you can as well.

Many disabled people need few, if any adaptions - certainly no more than an elderly retired couple who are also losing mobility.

Discriminating against the disabled as a personal choice is a little bit different to preferring clothes of a certain colour or style.

csgohan4

K80_Black wrote: »

Many disabled people need few, if any adaptions - certainly no more than an elderly retired couple who are also losing mobility.

Discriminating against the disabled as a personal choice is a little bit different to preferring clothes of a certain colour or style.

There's a fine line between discriminating and personal choice, if you feel the LL are discriminating you, by all means take them to court and see where it goes.

you still can't force LL to rent to benefits, disabled or otherwise. There are plenty of LL private who rent to benefit holders and disabled, just depends on your area.

No point arguing with reality, while there is probably discrimination/ personal choice, nothing you can do about it apart from complaining to your local MP and campaigning for change.