NO DSS Letting Agents and Landlords

SpiderLegs

David2710 said:

SpiderLegs said:

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?

 

Yes you are so wrong I don't know where to start. I've been campaigning to change the 'NO DSS' practice for over a decade. And I can assure you my findings are not based on a five minute browse on Zoopla. This thread is about exposing the practice, changing the law and helping others. This is not about my own personal circumstances. This article explains where we are at in regards to legislation but as you will notice it only protects certain groups under sections 19 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010. This means Letting agents and LL's are still using 'NO DSS' (but not necessarily printing the details) thinking they can evade justice. They will soon discover however they are not as smart as they think they are. Shortly I will be requesting viewings all over the UK from Letting agents and LL's who are on my radar. Why would any reputable Letting agent or LL risk being found out and prosecuted?   

Well I have read your other thread, which doesn’t particularly sound like someone who has been campaigning for over a decade.
you also write in your above post about what you will be doing, not what you have already done.

so on that basis I’m struggling to believe much of what you write.
regardless I’m sure when you do start your search you’ll no doubt come across some shady examples of agents and landlords. In the same way that there are some shady tenants who lie on their applications about income source (as you say you have done) or provide false references (like other people you know).

perhaps a more productive approach would be to drop the SJW act and be less antagonistic, as you may find that your struggle to find a new property is more about how you come across and less about your source of income.

mrlegend123

Simple do not rent to people of benefits. The Government created this and at fault. 

David2710

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? 

Unfortunately the media, especially the red tops are only interested in one particular cohort and it's the usual suspects on benefits. I remember former chancellor George Osborne complaining about people going to work whilst others (people on benefits) had their curtains closed. Because Osborne is a very ignorant man he probably didn't realise many of those with their curtains closed were night shift workers. But as the old saying goes, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Or in the case of Osborne and section of the press an agenda.   

David2710

justworriedabit said:

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

And why on earth would a tenant claiming LHA even consider your property if it were unaffordable? For a 1 bed flat  in central London max LHA is around £1,280 pcm whereas in areas of the North West it's below £400 pcm. Most people claiming LHA aren't completely daft or want to be evicted unless they are fraudsters. And also why would a guarantor want to risk losing their bond or house on tenants who have no way of covering the rent? Your arguments simply don't stand up. 

David2710

mrlegend123 said:

DSS is a risk for the BTL business.
Landlords don't have to rent to people on benefits. 

DSS is a business risk

And why are tenants on benefits more of a risk providing they have good references and credit ratings, can sometimes pay rent in advance and have access to a guaranteed income such a LHA and ESA ? Far more of a risk are employed people on short term/zero contracts or the self-employed. You are correct of course, LL's don't have to rent to people on benefits but they must obey the law. Any LL that has a property to rent that is advertised at or below the LHA rate cannot refuse people on benefits unless they are prepared to be prosecuted under the Equality Act 2010. Your choice Mr. Legend.  

David2710

FreshFruit said:

I've worked as a landlord for a while. 
In April 2020, one tenant (DSS) decided he would stop paying his rent, he has slowly built up a £2,000 debt over many years and after it hit £3k we asked the council to direct the payment directly to us - they refused! 

Another tenant, we had to sell the property to cover a large and unavoidable expense. We wanted the tenant to leave so we could do a basic refurbishment and sell it as empty.. The tenant was told by the council that she shouldn't leave under any circumstance and if she did then she'd be considered voluntarily homeless & would be refused help. Thankfully we avoided court but that could have cost us thousands. 

Not to mention that there is little recourse for a landlord in the event that the tenant decides to stop paying rent or trashes the place - you're never getting that money back.

Under current legislation if a DSS tenant falls into 2 months arrears the LL can apply for what's known as a Managed Payment To Landlord (MPTL). Why did you allow your tenant to built up a debt over "many years" and why didn't you serve a Section 21notice like anyone else? You are correct about the council's advice and obligations to the tenant but don't blame the tenant for what is bad legislation. Incase you haven't noticed, it has already been mentioned in this thread out 'professional' tenants (one a dentist I think) trashing the property and not paying rent. As mentioned earlier, don't tar everyone with the same brush and if you as a LL can't afford to take a short term risk or don't have the necessary insurance to cover your losses you really shouldn't be in the business.  

David2710

Choccygirl123 said:

I consider DSS, but the reality is people on benefits don't meet the affordability check. As much as I'd love to fill the gap in the council housing void, i have to be practical and ensure any tenant can afford to pay the rent each and every month. With hindsight the right to buy was a complete disaster.

I agree, Right to buy was a complete and utter disaster for those waiting for genuinely affordable homes to rent through the council. Help to buy was equally as bad because it drove up house prices/rents making it even more unaffordable for those on average salaries. If Help to buy was genuinely supposed to help FTB's get a foothold why was the cap set at £400K ? Utterly ridiculous, but that said it was excellent news for home owners, the well off and for those who could already afford to rent in the private sector.

Affordability in regards to paying the rent all depends on location and the LHA rate. In London for instance maximum LHA is £1280 for a one bed flat but in Doncaster it's £350 pcm. Like I said previously, I'm eligible for maximum LHA, can pay 6 months rent in advance, have a higher than average credit rating and excellent references but most LA's won't consider my application without a guarantors assets as collateral. It's a total shambles.   

teachfast

Billy_B_North said:

David2710 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

There was a similar thread the other week. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6252765/local-housing-allowance-renting-in-the-private-rented-sector

Yes thanks that was me again making my case. This is just a follow up before I put my case to my MP. 

I hope that your MP gives it short shrift. I make about 2% return on the house that I rent out, and don’t intend to have to take tenants that I don’t want at that level.
I’ll leave it empty before doing that.

No you wouldn't. Easy to type that but much harder to do when you're denying yourself income out of principle. You wouldn't just miss the 2%, you'd have to cover all costs as well. 

Robbo66

David2710 said:

All these replies and I still haven't heard one good reason why the vast majority of LL's reject LHA claimants. I've just searched for Studios and 1 bed properties in London and I discovered hundreds of studio flats at well below LHA. So let's just look at this for moment. There's no problem with affordability, there's no problem with a deposit, there's no problem with references, I can even pay 6 months rent in advance no problem (if the option were available), so give me one, just one reason why a LL would require a guarantor or that I work for 20hrs a week?. It's a total nonsense and can only conclude this is all based on prejudice and snobbery. Do they really think all LHA tenants are like the White Dee character from Channel 4's Benefit Street? I hope not. 

The main reason being that the LHA come nowhere near current market rents and the tenant is expected to make up the shortfall which in some areas could as much £250 a month. With that kind of shortfall then many tenants just wont have the extra funds to make it up so they end up 000s in arrears and given that it can take 12 months plus to evict a tenant is it any wonder landlord don't want tenants claiming benefits, at least when tenants are in work a landlord can apply for an attachment of earnings to recover some of the money owed.

GDB2222

teachfast said:

Billy_B_North said:

David2710 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

There was a similar thread the other week. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6252765/local-housing-allowance-renting-in-the-private-rented-sector

Yes thanks that was me again making my case. This is just a follow up before I put my case to my MP. 

I hope that your MP gives it short shrift. I make about 2% return on the house that I rent out, and don’t intend to have to take tenants that I don’t want at that level.
I’ll leave it empty before doing that.

No you wouldn't. Easy to type that but much harder to do when you're denying yourself income out of principle. You wouldn't just miss the 2%, you'd have to cover all costs as well. 

The point you need to take into account is that the wrong tenant can cost the landlord 5-10 years worth of 2%'s. It's no wonder that landlords are pretty cautious about whom they take. 

The real issue is whether they are being sensible about how they mitigate the risk?