No DSS tenants

diggingdude

I think its a great idea. Remove to DSS from the adverts then the muggles can waste more time on their pay as you go mobiles finding out that they can't have the property.......not.  Whether its nice or not to people, surely it makes more sense to advertise that you will accept benefits or not so hopes aren't raised and the local authority housing officer cant just say "ring every property on this list, one will take you" knowing full well they won't (written as a capitalist social worker who can't figure out the benefit system these days  )

Cakeguts

I don't think it has anything to do with not being nice to people or being discrimination. I think it is a realistic statement.  It basically says that a landlord isn't going to consider letting to someone who might have more of a problem paying the rent that someone who is paying all the rent from a salary. 

I would bet that Shelter wouldn't take an agent to court if the adverts had instead said that the property was only suitable for someone who could pay all the rent from the wages from their job?  No mention of benefits in that.

John_

theartfullodger said:

Well done Shelter, helping getting the "No DSS" overturned! People on benefits shouldn't be discriminated against.

Artful: In receipt of 6 benefits, thank you, you generous tax-payers you!

I’d probably just accept the fines, or stop renting my place out. I want to rent to professionals with good jobs, the sort of people who tend to respect a property, and who are going to make sure that they pay their rent on time every month.

You can never be certain, but when allowing someone to live in such a valuable asset it’s fair enough to push the odds as much in your favour as you can.

ElephantBoy57

pickledonionspaceraider said:

It is an injustice to not allow people to have a home. To be allowed to discriminate in such a way 'No DSS' it rules out an entire group of people in the same way it would if it said 'No blacks or Irish'.  It is discrimination and inhumane to not allow someone a home. Basic human needs. Not sure why it would need explaining in such simple terms to anyone

I agree. But it does depend on when and what people rule out. Millions of people get tax credits, that is a benefit.

Many landlords are just average people, just like me letting out my bedroom to a lodger. I judged who I wanted, on my own biased way, if I was to write it down I am sure you would say that I was discriminating some 'types'. Whoever I interviewed, I would need to 'like' them.

Silvertabby

There are a couple of BTL properties on our estate.  The last time they were advertised for let, they both specified ' no housing benefit, must have a household income of at least 3 x rent'.  Will Shelter also make it illegal to insist on a minimum income? 

HRH_MUngo

Silvertabby said:

There are a couple of BTL properties on our estate.  The last time they were advertised for let, they both specified ' no housing benefit, must have a household income of at least 3 x rent'.  Will Shelter also make it illegal to insist on a minimum income? 

Perhaps it could state something like 'must have 3* income from employment or pensions'? All this legislation will do Is give people false hopes. They still won't get the properties as they will fail the referencing. 

newsgroupmonkey_

Silvertabby said:

There are a couple of BTL properties on our estate.  The last time they were advertised for let, they both specified ' no housing benefit, must have a household income of at least 3 x rent'.  Will Shelter also make it illegal to insist on a minimum income? 

Wow! That's quite strict.
I guess it depends how much they were going for.

I mean, if I as a single person wanted to rent a place for £10k a month and my take-home income was £20k, I'd say I stood a chance of not having any trouble paying for it.

On the flip side, if the property was £300 a month, then I might struggle if there are 2 of us with a couple of kids and we have to run a car with a household income of £900 a month.

[Deleted User]

John_ said:

I’d probably just accept the fines, or stop renting my place out. I want to rent to professionals with good jobs, the sort of people who tend to respect a property, and who are going to make sure that they pay their rent on time every month.

You can never be certain, but when allowing someone to live in such a valuable asset it’s fair enough to push the odds as much in your favour as you can.

This could sound like a snide comment, but it isn't, as I'd really like to know how you would handle the situation if those professionals lost their jobs and had to claim benefits? Obviously this can and does happen, and isn't also true that many people who are claiming HB or UC are in work anyway?

Cakeguts

Rabbit24 said:

John_ said:

I’d probably just accept the fines, or stop renting my place out. I want to rent to professionals with good jobs, the sort of people who tend to respect a property, and who are going to make sure that they pay their rent on time every month.

You can never be certain, but when allowing someone to live in such a valuable asset it’s fair enough to push the odds as much in your favour as you can.

This could sound like a snide comment, but it isn't, as I'd really like to know how you would handle the situation if those professionals lost their jobs and had to claim benefits? Obviously this can and does happen, and isn't also true that many people who are claiming HB or UC are in work anyway?

It depends on the property and the person applying to rent it. Some people are totally unrealistic about what they can afford or even what their family can fit into.  Also what some people tell our letting agents when they are interested in a property doesn't in any way make financial sense.  We just turn them all down. No one wants the hassle of chasing people for rent.  

The letting agents are also trying to make a living. They don't want to spend all their time chasing certain tenants for the rent.  Not only that but letting agents in general will have a good idea of tenant income sources that take up all their time and of course they want to avoid tenants with those income sources.  We are back to the minority spoiling it for the majority.

Instead of going after letting agents Shelter should be going after the tenants who don't pay their rent on time.  These people are the ones who are causing the problems wherever their income comes from not the letting agents and landlords.  Not paying your rent on time is in the same category as shop lifting.  Shops ban persistent shop lifters from their stores is this also discrimination? 

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Rabbit24 said:

John_ said:

I’d probably just accept the fines, or stop renting my place out. I want to rent to professionals with good jobs, the sort of people who tend to respect a property, and who are going to make sure that they pay their rent on time every month.

You can never be certain, but when allowing someone to live in such a valuable asset it’s fair enough to push the odds as much in your favour as you can.

This could sound like a snide comment, but it isn't, as I'd really like to know how you would handle the situation if those professionals lost their jobs and had to claim benefits? Obviously this can and does happen, and isn't also true that many people who are claiming HB or UC are in work anyway?

By and large, professionals (loose term of course, but I'm sure LLs know what they're looking for) are more likely to be able to easily find another job, and more likely to have been able to save to cover for rainy day moments like unemployment.

I've been  made redundant once. I didn't bother with any benefits (genuinely had no idea about any of them) as I was a graduate in my 20s in London; I knew I would just get another job; I paid the bills from my rainy day savings in the 5 weeks or so it took for my next salary to start.