NO DSS Letting Agents and Landlords

David2710

Poster_586329 said:

Here are 80 one-bed flats currently available in South West London for under £1200 a month (which should be within LHA rates or thereabouts).  And which have garden access too.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION^92829&maxBedrooms=1&minBedrooms=1&maxPrice=1200&propertyTypes=&mustHave=garden&dontShow=houseShare,retirement,student&furnishTypes=&letType=longTerm&keywords=

Some are around Battersea, Clapham, Wandsworth, so close to parks. 

Surely now with flats sitting empty, landlords will look more favourably on LHA applicants.   

A sticking point will be whether you can pay the deposit and first month's rent from your own savings, while your Universal Credit claim is being processed.   If you're able to do this, then surely you'll find a property before long.

Thanks for that. The problem is not about supply or LHA rates in London, it's about Landlords/Letting agents refusing point blank to even consider non-working applicants without a guarantor. Since the recent court ruling, Right Move doesn't any longer permit 'NO DSS' on its listings but that doesn't mean properties are readily available to applicants on benefits. Other sites like Zoopla still show 'NO DSS' but more commonly it's 'DSS considered with a guarantor', or more commonly, 'professionals only' or minimum income requirements. They think they're being smart but if a disabled a BAME, LGBT or heaven forfend a disabled, bame and lgbt applicant views a property, fills out an application and is refused it could end up in court in breach of the Discrimination and Equality Act . And if a Guardian jouro gets hold of it, sacré bleu all hell will break lose, I would not like to be that letting agent or LL. Unfortunately the Discrimination and Equality Act doesn't protect a majority of tenants and that's what this thread is all about. I would therefore urge others to contact their MP's to make the necessary changes.      

ayupmeduck

David2710 said:

Just a quick update for those interested. Having searched various online property sites I can confirm the following. 

Right Move has a clean bill of health as they don't allow "NO DSS" since the recent court ruling. They also have a few adverts which say "DSS Welcome". 

Zoopla has quite a few listings which include 'NO DSS". This despite the fact they said they would follow Right Move's example and ban the practice. 

Trovit has some listings with "NO DSS" but the vast majority are DSS "considered" or "welcome with a guarantor".

Gumtree is similar to Trovit but unlike others has quite a few listing where DSS is accepted, even welcome without any pre-conditions to the over 35's. The only issue with Gumtree as far as I can see is how many of the listings are genuine? So caveat emptor (buyer beware).

Of course the acid test will be how many letting agents not mentioning DSS will actually proceed with the application once a viewing has been made. No doubt they'll make all the excuses under the sun such as "the property has just been let" or "the LL has sold the property" or my favourite "the LL's lender doesn't permit it", which we already know is no longer the case. As already mentioned I will be testing this live shortly and will record and report my findings to my MP.  Watch this space. 

and you will be declaring you are recording and gaining consent?

[Deleted User]

Ah, thanks for explaining the problem, David - but I'm sorry to hear about it!

Still, isn't it worth approaching landlords/agencies till you're blue in the face?  You can only ask.  You just need one landlord/agency to agree, after all.

Here's one in Notting Hill!:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/90333514#/

SpiderLegs

David2710 said:

Poster_586329 said:

Here are 80 one-bed flats currently available in South West London for under £1200 a month (which should be within LHA rates or thereabouts).  And which have garden access too.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION^92829&maxBedrooms=1&minBedrooms=1&maxPrice=1200&propertyTypes=&mustHave=garden&dontShow=houseShare,retirement,student&furnishTypes=&letType=longTerm&keywords=

Some are around Battersea, Clapham, Wandsworth, so close to parks. 

Surely now with flats sitting empty, landlords will look more favourably on LHA applicants.   

A sticking point will be whether you can pay the deposit and first month's rent from your own savings, while your Universal Credit claim is being processed.   If you're able to do this, then surely you'll find a property before long.

Thanks for that. The problem is not about supply or LHA rates in London, it's about Landlords/Letting agents refusing point blank to even consider non-working applicants without a guarantor. Since the recent court ruling, Right Move doesn't any longer permit 'NO DSS' on its listings but that doesn't mean properties are readily available to applicants on benefits. Other sites like Zoopla still show 'NO DSS' but more commonly it's 'DSS considered with a guarantor', or more commonly, 'professionals only' or minimum income requirements. They think they're being smart but if a disabled a BAME, LGBT or heaven forfend a disabled, bame and lgbt applicant views a property, fills out an application and is refused it could end up in court in breach of the Discrimination and Equality Act . And if a Guardian jouro gets hold of it, sacré bleu all hell will break lose, I would not like to be that letting agent or LL. Unfortunately the Discrimination and Equality Act doesn't protect a majority of tenants and that's what this thread is all about. I would therefore urge others to contact their MP's to make the necessary changes.      

As far as I can see, you haven’t actually tried to rent any of these properties. Perhaps I am wrong. Can you tell us about your actual experience rather than just wild speculation from a five minute search on some property websites?

 

KxMx

Food for thought.
I totally realise most LL's consider benefit tenants high risk. 
But what about a letting agency I know of, whose absolute worst trashed property had been occupied by a professional couple, a solicitor and a dentist? 

David2710

ayupmeduck said:

David2710 said:

Just a quick update for those interested. Having searched various online property sites I can confirm the following. 

Right Move has a clean bill of health as they don't allow "NO DSS" since the recent court ruling. They also have a few adverts which say "DSS Welcome". 

Zoopla has quite a few listings which include 'NO DSS". This despite the fact they said they would follow Right Move's example and ban the practice. 

Trovit has some listings with "NO DSS" but the vast majority are DSS "considered" or "welcome with a guarantor".

Gumtree is similar to Trovit but unlike others has quite a few listing where DSS is accepted, even welcome without any pre-conditions to the over 35's. The only issue with Gumtree as far as I can see is how many of the listings are genuine? So caveat emptor (buyer beware).

Of course the acid test will be how many letting agents not mentioning DSS will actually proceed with the application once a viewing has been made. No doubt they'll make all the excuses under the sun such as "the property has just been let" or "the LL has sold the property" or my favourite "the LL's lender doesn't permit it", which we already know is no longer the case. As already mentioned I will be testing this live shortly and will record and report my findings to my MP.  Watch this space. 

and you will be declaring you are recording and gaining consent?

No I won't. If the recording forms part of a legitimate criminal investigation then it's perfectly legit under the 1998 Wireless Telegraphy Act. If the agent or LL is in clear breach of the Equality Act they should expect to prosecuted. The recordings and other communications can and will be used as evidence. Why take the risk, especially Letting agents who have everything to lose? 

ripplyuk

KxMx said:

Food for thought.
I totally realise most LL's consider benefit tenants high risk. 
But what about a letting agency I know of, whose absolute worst trashed property had been occupied by a professional couple, a solicitor and a dentist? 

They’d come to the correct conclusion that they were just unlucky to get some bad tenants. 

Unlike if those tenants had been on benefits, which for some reason leads landlords to conclude that ALL tenants on benefits are bad. It’s as ridiculous as concluding that all solicitors and dentists are bad tenants. 

David2710

Poster_586329 said:

You'll find most flats are in period conversions.  There haven't been many modern flats built with balconies and views of the Shard which don't cost megabucks.

I'd say you'd be better off with somewhere that allows pets, anyway!

Reference to the London Shard was just saying not too far from central London. If I can see the tallest building in London then it should be within walking distance of the London underground. As for the balcony, yes that would be a nice added bonus but it's not a deal clincher. Because I qualify for maximum LHA there are hundreds of modern/ brand new flats within my price range that include a balcony, access to a gym and magnificent views of the River Thames. Roughly £1200 pcm is the average for a 1 bed or Studio flat. Not sure why I'd be better off with a pet owning flat as I don't own and don't want to own a pet.   

[Deleted User]

Well, good luck!

There are places in South London where you may have a view of the Shard but be an hour's walk from a London Underground station!  Though of course there are buses, and mainline train / overground services.

justworriedabit

KxMx said:

Food for thought.
I totally realise most LL's consider benefit tenants high risk. 
But what about a letting agency I know of, whose absolute worst trashed property had been occupied by a professional couple, a solicitor and a dentist? 

No one has said  so-called professionals or others not on benefits won't trash you place etc - what they are saying me inc is the risk/the hassle and as I've said before you may not be able to get rental ins/etc or it will cost a lot more.
When we buy our 2 places, they will be at the high end of rent not covered by benefits, ie won't be able to afford it, If they could and had an excellent, traceable track record and valid reason to move and had a guarantor, as long as they did not smoke or have pets, we would consider them