No DSS tenants

John_

afis1904 said:

John_ said:

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.

And you wonder why landlord is one of the least respected professions in the country.

It’s not my profession, but even if it were, I really don’t care what level of respect I get from people like you.

You rent your home to who you want, I’ll rent to who I want, and neither of us has any business trying to be judgemental about the other one’s choices.

afis1904

John_ said:

afis1904 said:

John_ said:

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.

And you wonder why landlord is one of the least respected professions in the country.

It’s not my profession, but even if it were, I really don’t care what level of respect I get from people like you.

You rent your home to who you want, I’ll rent to who I want, and neither of us has any business trying to be judgemental about the other one’s choices.

Only that renting isn't a normal business transaction but rather something that satisfies a basic human right.

diggingdude

Only that renting isn't a normal business transaction but rather something that satisfies a basic human right.

A basic human right would be met by an elected government of the people. As you are looking for a private individual to provide you with a home in exchange for rent it becomes a business transaction, one where financially the LL takes on the risk for the state

afis1904

diggingdude said:

Only that renting isn't a normal business transaction but rather something that satisfies a basic human right.

A basic human right would be met by an elected government of the people. As you are looking for a private individual to provide you with a home in exchange for rent it becomes a business transaction, one where financially the LL takes on the risk for the state

It should be in terms of money but unfortunately it isn't so yes, flat-out benefit claimants is definitely discriminatory and one of the reasons why landlords are incredibly unpopular

theartfullodger

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

I think they meant DHSS, which was the forerunner to the DSS for those old farts among us (apparently, stopped being that in 1988)

Aye, old fart here, 72:  I remember... (well, I remember only some things latterly...)

Cakeguts

afis1904 said:

John_ said:

afis1904 said:

John_ said:

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.

And you wonder why landlord is one of the least respected professions in the country.

It’s not my profession, but even if it were, I really don’t care what level of respect I get from people like you.

You rent your home to who you want, I’ll rent to who I want, and neither of us has any business trying to be judgemental about the other one’s choices.

Only that renting isn't a normal business transaction but rather something that satisfies a basic human right.

What makes you think that one private individual has to satisfy another private individual's basic human rights? What happened to personal responsibility?  No one has a basic right to anything.  Everyone has a choice as to how they will find somewhere to live and to pay for it.  No one has the right to rely on someone else for something that they could quite easily provide for themselves if they made sensible choices.

Having 3 children and no savings is not a sensible choice.

[Deleted User]

deannatrois said:

So many assumptions in this thread.  As someone who has been a carer on benefits for years I am a decent person who has no unpaid debts, only paid rent a few days late when partner (who was working, please take note) didn't pay what he said he would to LL.  I paid it within days.  I also improved the place (put a bathroom in, did the work myself and no one could believe it even trades who came round).  Having a professional tenant because you want rent paid, or to avoid having your place trashed is down to the sort of person the tenant is, not just their income or profession.  That's what you need to look at once basic income is proved, not its source.

I think you've made some assumptions on this thread.  You're the first one to mention trashing a property whereas others have been primarily discussing affordability.  No matter how decent a person you are if you claim housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit you are capped by the local housing allowance for the size of property you are deemed to require.  The majority of rental properties in that local area will have rents higher than the LHA making the properties unaffordable to those relying on HB/UC.  Landlords might not be able to advertise as "no DSS*" but they can still easily fail people on affordability.

Those in work who lose jobs are more likely to be able to find work again in the event of a job loss so a dip in earnings is more likely to be a short blip whilst those in long term receipt of benefits are at the mercy of the government.

* A term that annoys me since in itself it is meaningless and refers to a government department that has been defunct for almost two decades.

A_Lert

Since these cases were settled out of court no legal precedent has been set. But the writing is on the wall - these two landlords were spooked into paying compensation after all.

When this discrimination is established as unlawful, it is my understanding that the terms in existing mortgage and insurance contracts demanding it will become unenforceable.

Affordability has never been the issue. A great many landlords refuse to rent to people claiming benefits because of stereotypes about how those people are likely to behave. And those landlords have been quite happy to hide behind "oh the mortgage says it".

Murphybear

A_Lert said:

Since these cases were settled out of court no legal precedent has been set. But the writing is on the wall - these two landlords were spooked into paying compensation after all.

When this discrimination is established as unlawful, it is my understanding that the terms in existing mortgage and insurance contracts demanding it will become unenforceable.

Affordability has never been the issue. A great many landlords refuse to rent to people claiming benefits because of stereotypes about how those people are likely to behave. And those landlords have been quite happy to hide behind "oh the mortgage says it".

Interesting point.  We are pensioners who rent.  A couple of years ago we spoke to a letting agent about a house that was affordable, we have 2 state pensions and 3 works pensions between us.  We explained we needed some top up LHA and were concerned about the “no DHSS” rule.  We were told that the “no DHSS” rule didn’t apply to pensioners. .  Nothing was said about insurance and mortgage companies not allowing it.  

On this occasion it would seem that stereotyping can work for you rather than against you.

HRH_MUngo

afis1904 said:

John_ said:

afis1904 said:

John_ said:

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.

And you wonder why landlord is one of the least respected professions in the country.

It’s not my profession, but even if it were, I really don’t care what level of respect I get from people like you.

You rent your home to who you want, I’ll rent to who I want, and neither of us has any business trying to be judgemental about the other one’s choices.

Only that renting isn't a normal business transaction but rather something that satisfies a basic human right.

Private landlords are not social housing providers, even though the Government is trying to make them so.  When I let my flat to someone, it will be to the person who I think can a) afford the rent and b) be likely to pay it, regularly and on time.
I am NOT saying that everyone on benefits is unlikely to pay the rent, but there is so much can go wrong with benefits that to me it is not worth taking the risk.