NO DSS Letting Agents and Landlords

David2710

GDB2222 said:

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

That's why I say maximum LHA. For instance in BoJo's constituency of London Uxbridge, Max LHA is £745 pcm for a 1 bed flat whereas in Jacob Rees-Mogg's neighbourhood of London Westminster it's £1,280 pcm. The problem with Uxbridge and areas like Doncaster or Blackpool, average rental prices are often significantly higher than LHA. Also not everyone claiming housing benefit are entitled to max LHA. It's not rocket science but people like Robbo propagating these myths and falsehoods is the reason why many LL's don't accept DSS tenants. It's this type of fearmongering that's caused enormous harm and suffering to those forced onto the streets.     

GDB2222

knightstyle said:

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.

I feel sorry that you have been put in that position. Unfortunately, there’s no doubt that some DSS tenants are truly awful. By no means all, though. 

Robbo66

David2710 said:

GDB2222 said:

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

That's why I say maximum LHA. For instance in BoJo's constituency of London Uxbridge, Max LHA is £745 pcm for a 1 bed flat whereas in Jacob Rees-Mogg's neighbourhood of London Westminster it's £1,280 pcm. The problem with Uxbridge and areas like Doncaster or Blackpool, average rental prices are often significantly higher than LHA. Also not everyone claiming housing benefit are entitled to max LHA. It's not rocket science but people like Robbo propagating these myths and falsehoods is the reason why many LL's don't accept DSS tenants. It's this type of fearmongering that's caused enormous harm and suffering to those forced onto the streets.     

I haven't propagated any falsehood or myth, where I live LHA doest come near the current LHA rate so tenants must make up the shortfall something the majority just can afford to do, I know this from personal experience, fortunately I managed to get new employment and was able to cover the rent. here is an example http://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx?LocalAuthorityId=111&LHACategory=1&Month=4&Year=2021&SearchPageParameters=true

knightstyle

GDB2222 You say not all renters/DSS claimants are like that but I have had a count up and out of 14 renters over the years only 2 were 'normal' reasonable people who did not take advantage of the landlords.
One family moved several times over the years each time leaving debts, ruined houses with lots of damage and debris but each time they got a grant for their new deposit and carried on with their drug/alcohol parties in and out of the houses.
It really upsets me that ultimately we tax payers are paying for this and they seem to get away with it time after time.

David2710

Robbo66 said:

David2710 said:

GDB2222 said:

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

That's why I say maximum LHA. For instance in BoJo's constituency of London Uxbridge, Max LHA is £745 pcm for a 1 bed flat whereas in Jacob Rees-Mogg's neighbourhood of London Westminster it's £1,280 pcm. The problem with Uxbridge and areas like Doncaster or Blackpool, average rental prices are often significantly higher than LHA. Also not everyone claiming housing benefit are entitled to max LHA. It's not rocket science but people like Robbo propagating these myths and falsehoods is the reason why many LL's don't accept DSS tenants. It's this type of fearmongering that's caused enormous harm and suffering to those forced onto the streets.     

I haven't propagated any falsehood or myth, where I live LHA doest come near the current LHA rate so tenants must make up the shortfall something the majority just can afford to do, I know this from personal experience, fortunately I managed to get new employment and was able to cover the rent. here is an example http://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx?LocalAuthorityId=111&LHACategory=1&Month=4&Year=2021&SearchPageParameters=true

You made a blanket statement Robbo which simply wasn't true. Here's the quote verbatim "LHA come nowhere near current market rents and the tenant is expected to make up the shortfall". It's true the tenant is expected to make up the difference in some areas but in others there's no extra or very little to pay. I think most people claiming LHA (many working people included) would only rent a property that was within their monthly budget and why wouldn't they? I'm afraid it's this type of scaremongering and misinformation we could all do without. 

David2710

knightstyle said:

GDB2222 You say not all renters/DSS claimants are like that but I have had a count up and out of 14 renters over the years only 2 were 'normal' reasonable people who did not take advantage of the landlords.
One family moved several times over the years each time leaving debts, ruined houses with lots of damage and debris but each time they got a grant for their new deposit and carried on with their drug/alcohol parties in and out of the houses.
It really upsets me that ultimately we tax payers are paying for this and they seem to get away with it time after time.

And why don't I believe you? In case you hadn't noticed many people claiming LHA are in work, even university educated professionals. I even wrote about a trainee Barrister earlier who was on benefits.  Also earlier in this thread a LL said one of the worst tenants he ever had was a Dentist, who didn't pay the rent, left debts worth thousands and trashed the property. Stop tarring everyone with the same brush. 

David2710

GDB2222 said:

knightstyle said:

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.

I feel sorry that you have been put in that position. Unfortunately, there’s no doubt that some DSS tenants are truly awful. By no means all, though. 

I think this knightstyle charachter is just winding you up. I don't believe a word of it but obviously there are bad tenants the Tory press, Channel 4 and 5  in particular can't get enough of and it gives everyone a bad rep. I have had a bad experience with the travelling community but I don't tar all travelers with the same brush. Look at Tyson Fury for instance. A model gypsy boy.  

David2710

[Deleted User] said:

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.

I am confident when my MP returns from his Easter break he will do what is necessary to ensure the Equality Act doesn't exclude anyone and why should it?   

David2710

Murphybear said:

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.

The Equalities Act as it currently stands only protects specific groups such as the LGBT and BAME communities. I don't think it extends to disabled people unless severely disabled. It certainly doesn't protect the terminally ill, the homeless, people with learning difficulties such as autism etc. Traditionally this cohort could expect to be housed in the social housing rented sector but due to a chronic lack of housing they are forced to look elsewhere. Why would any MP not want to reform the Equality Act that excludes the most vulnerable in society?

David2710

SpiderLegs said:

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.

You don't know me from Adam so please don't judge or cast aspersions.

When faced with discrimination on a regular basis you either fight back or you end up on the streets. I choose to fight back and I fight hard and if necessary dirty. If that means being somewhat economical with the truth then so be it. All that counts is I get a roof over my head, the LA gets his commission and the LL gets his rent.

I don't care one iota whether you believe me or not. As mentioned earlier I have a much higher than average credit rating, have excellent LL and personal references and can pay six months rent up front, so I don't think I will have much difficulty finding a property with or without divulging my current personal circumstances.

When you say "your struggle to find a new property is more about how you come across and less about your source of income", you expose yourself as knowing very little about how the system works. Being an ex Estate Agent myself I can assure you all Letting Agents/Landlords care about is can the tenant pay the rent in full and on time and will the tenant treat the property with respect. This thread is not about me it's about exposing the charlatans and changing the law. Don't shoot the messenger.