NO DSS Letting Agents and Landlords

David2710

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. 

I agree either he's talking complete bs or is financially over leveraged and or in the wrong area. Let's take a property in London for instance. A homeowner with no mortgage can rent out a 1 bedroom property for a minimum of £1000 pcm. That's almost 100% profit after tax. Try getting that in your local building society. Even a Btl landlord is quids in with record interest rates. I'm just guessing but I think Billy boy just doesn't like certain types. A bit like the most hated man in Britain Fergus Wilson.

David2710

Robbo66 said:

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.

Is it just me or am I beginning to sound like a stuck record? In some parts of the UK LHA falls below market rents but in other parts such as London Max LHA for a 1 bed flat is £1,280 pcm. I see many luxury flats advertised in London for around that price with Studio flats at £1000 pcm or below. Why would anyone but a fraudster take on a property they couldn't afford? You have a point about attachment of earnings but what if the tenant loses his/her job or simply disappears off the radar. What then? If you can't take a short term risk you shouldn't be in the business. There's no excuse for blatant discrimination.    

Robbo66

David2710 said:

Robbo66 said:

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.

Is it just me or am I beginning to sound like a stuck record? In some parts of the UK LHA falls below market rents but in other parts such as London Max LHA for a 1 bed flat is £1,280 pcm. I see many luxury flats advertised in London for around that price with Studio flats at £1000 pcm or below. Why would anyone but a fraudster take on a property they couldn't afford? You have a point about attachment of earnings but what if the tenant loses his/her job or simply disappears off the radar. What then? If you can't take a short term risk you shouldn't be in the business. There's no excuse for blatant discrimination.    

Why are you banging on about London, London isn't the only are where people rent. The UK is bigger than just London. The rental market is very buoyant at the moment so Landlords will choose who they believe will make the better tenant, they after all free to choose.

[Deleted User]

David you might want to add OpenRent to the list of companies that are facilitating discriminatory practices.   

Their adverts still allow landlords to specify that they will not accept DSS tenants.

Perhaps it's something to take up with The Property Ombudsman of which they are a member.

David2710

Poster_586329 said:

David you might want to add OpenRent to the list of companies that are facilitating discriminatory practices.   

Their adverts still allow landlords to specify that they will not accept DSS tenants.

Perhaps it's something to take up with The Property Ombudsman of which they are a member.

Yes I am aware of Open rent. They do however show properties that allow DSS which is quite helpful. The problem is knowing which properties are genuine and those which are fraudulent. I notice a trend recently of one click applications that avoids visiting the property, the LL or the LA. Sounds very convenient but also very risky and handy for fraudsters. In regards to advertising "NO DSS", the problem for the LL and LA agent is not the advert itself but when an application is declined and in breach of the Equalities Act. Any LL or LA that declines on the basis of "NO DSS" are taking one hell of a gamble and for what? 

David2710

Robbo66 said:

David2710 said:

Robbo66 said:

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.

Is it just me or am I beginning to sound like a stuck record? In some parts of the UK LHA falls below market rents but in other parts such as London Max LHA for a 1 bed flat is £1,280 pcm. I see many luxury flats advertised in London for around that price with Studio flats at £1000 pcm or below. Why would anyone but a fraudster take on a property they couldn't afford? You have a point about attachment of earnings but what if the tenant loses his/her job or simply disappears off the radar. What then? If you can't take a short term risk you shouldn't be in the business. There's no excuse for blatant discrimination.    

Why are you banging on about London, London isn't the only are where people rent. The UK is bigger than just London. The rental market is very buoyant at the moment so Landlords will choose who they believe will make the better tenant, they after all free to choose.

Robbo66 said:

David2710 said:

Robbo66 said:

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.

Is it just me or am I beginning to sound like a stuck record? In some parts of the UK LHA falls below market rents but in other parts such as London Max LHA for a 1 bed flat is £1,280 pcm. I see many luxury flats advertised in London for around that price with Studio flats at £1000 pcm or below. Why would anyone but a fraudster take on a property they couldn't afford? You have a point about attachment of earnings but what if the tenant loses his/her job or simply disappears off the radar. What then? If you can't take a short term risk you shouldn't be in the business. There's no excuse for blatant discrimination.    

Why are you banging on about London, London isn't the only are where people rent. The UK is bigger than just London. The rental market is very buoyant at the moment so Landlords will choose who they believe will make the better tenant, they after all free to choose.

You made a factually incorrect statement Robbo. I was just correcting a popular myth which says "LHA comes nowhere near current market rents". I gave two examples comparing LHA in Doncaster (the lowest LHA) and London (the highest LHA). Yes the LL has every right to choose the tenant but if an application is rejected and is later deemed in breach of the Equalities act then expect to go court. Yes your property your choice Robbo but choose wisely because the game's up.  

GDB2222

The LHA max rent varies in different parts of London. That's not clear from the above, although David probably knows. 

Murphybear

David2710 said:

Poster_586329 said:

David you might want to add OpenRent to the list of companies that are facilitating discriminatory practices.   

Their adverts still allow landlords to specify that they will not accept DSS tenants.

Perhaps it's something to take up with The Property Ombudsman of which they are a member.

Yes I am aware of Open rent. They do however show properties that allow DSS which is quite helpful. The problem is knowing which properties are genuine and those which are fraudulent. I notice a trend recently of one click applications that avoids visiting the property, the LL or the LA. Sounds very convenient but also very risky and handy for fraudsters. In regards to advertising "NO DSS", the problem for the LL and LA agent is not the advert itself but when an application is declined and in breach of the Equalities Act. Any LL or LA that declines on the basis of "NO DSS" are taking one hell of a gamble and for what? 

What happens if you get 2 applicants who are disabled and on benefits?  One will be declined but won’t be in breach if the Equalities Act.

knightstyle

We have just sold our house, bought in 2006 at a loss because of renters on DSS around us ruining our lovely little close.  If I was a landlord I would insist on NO DSS after seeing what they get up to.
To those who defend them have you ever lived surrounded by them, rubbish, drinking and drugs at all hours in gardens/pavements, burning furniture in the street etc. etc. 
Plus the damage they do toa house in a short time has to be seen to be believed.

[Deleted User]

David2710 said:

Robbo66 said:

David2710 said:

Robbo66 said:

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.

Is it just me or am I beginning to sound like a stuck record? In some parts of the UK LHA falls below market rents but in other parts such as London Max LHA for a 1 bed flat is £1,280 pcm. I see many luxury flats advertised in London for around that price with Studio flats at £1000 pcm or below. Why would anyone but a fraudster take on a property they couldn't afford? You have a point about attachment of earnings but what if the tenant loses his/her job or simply disappears off the radar. What then? If you can't take a short term risk you shouldn't be in the business. There's no excuse for blatant discrimination.    

Why are you banging on about London, London isn't the only are where people rent. The UK is bigger than just London. The rental market is very buoyant at the moment so Landlords will choose who they believe will make the better tenant, they after all free to choose.

Robbo66 said:

David2710 said:

Robbo66 said:

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.

Is it just me or am I beginning to sound like a stuck record? In some parts of the UK LHA falls below market rents but in other parts such as London Max LHA for a 1 bed flat is £1,280 pcm. I see many luxury flats advertised in London for around that price with Studio flats at £1000 pcm or below. Why would anyone but a fraudster take on a property they couldn't afford? You have a point about attachment of earnings but what if the tenant loses his/her job or simply disappears off the radar. What then? If you can't take a short term risk you shouldn't be in the business. There's no excuse for blatant discrimination.    

Why are you banging on about London, London isn't the only are where people rent. The UK is bigger than just London. The rental market is very buoyant at the moment so Landlords will choose who they believe will make the better tenant, they after all free to choose.

You made a factually incorrect statement Robbo. I was just correcting a popular myth which says "LHA comes nowhere near current market rents". I gave two examples comparing LHA in Doncaster (the lowest LHA) and London (the highest LHA). Yes the LL has every right to choose the tenant but if an application is rejected and is later deemed in breach of the Equalities act then expect to go court. Yes your property your choice Robbo but choose wisely because the game's up.  

But by your own reasoning "the game" is not up as you feel the Equalities Act is insufficient to provide the protections you require.