NO DSS Letting Agents and Landlords

GDB2222

So, essentially, you want private landlords to provide social housing. But without any of the funding required. 

They need, under your model, to take all tenants, however awful. Even those tenants who appear at first glance obviously unmanageable. 

squizz11

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. 

my husband actually works 35 hrs a week but because I'm a carer and he isn't a high earner so we need UC.   we don't know anyone to be a guarantor, especially one that earns 60k and owns a house.   we have an impeccable record but we still get turned down,  or we are ignored.  something has to change

tasticz

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. 

So people cannot choose who they want to do business with? 

In my opinion, people feel more secure renting to a professional individuals as they are less likely to cause problems that can affect their own careers. People on benefits have always been portrayed as problematic and nobody wants any headaches or problems when doing business. 

GDB2222

squizz11 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. 

my husband actually works 35 hrs a week but because I'm a carer and he isn't a high earner so we need UC.   we don't know anyone to be a guarantor, especially one that earns 60k and owns a house.   we have an impeccable record but we still get turned down,  or we are ignored.  something has to change

I have taken people on benefits. It depends on the people. Some of them work out well, but the real problem tenants have all been on benefits.

531063

David2710 said:

531063 said:

David2710 said:

So my question is this, why are landlords and letting agencies STILL despite legal precedent discriminating against sick and disabled people? Even Banks and Building societies have reversed the 'NO DSS' policies in light of recent court rulings and media pressure.

Because 95% of my tenants who don't pay the rent are on benefits, when you contact your MP ask him to go back to the old system and pay the rent money direct to the LL, then I will start taking on tenants who are paid via benefits.

Read my previous post. LHA can now be paid direct to the LL (upon request) or when rent is overdue by two calendar months. Universal Credit can be paid immediately via a loan. Legacy benefits such as ESA and PIP are paid immediately. As a matter of interest how many of your 'professional' tenants will be on the dole when furlough ends? What happens when your 'professional couple' split up and can no longer pay the rent? How many of your 'professional tenants' have provided bogus banks statements, pay slips and references? Being a LL is not an exact science and is not risk free. Understandably part-time Btl LL's want their cake and want to eat it, they also want to hedge their bets, but there's no excuse for blatant prejudice and discrimination.   

Yes but that request for rent to be paid direct to LL can be revoked by tenant at any time & LL can do nothing about it, I now only take tenants with a guarantor (mainly because a tenant will have a LL off, but will think twice about screwing a family member/friend who has stood guarantor for them) & I'm not a part time LL so can afforded it if some of my tenants don't pay

SpiderLegs

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. 

You haven’t provided any evidence of the vast majority of LLs rejecting LHA claimants.
All you’ve done is highlight some income requirements which appear to apply equally to any applicant.

diggingdude

A landlord I used to work with wouldn't take people dependant solely on benefits (with the exception of dissability benefits) as he was old school and felt most people who earned their money respected the effort to get it and felt the pain of handing it over. As such they took pride in their reputations and paid their bills/looked after the property. He also used to point out rentals were his business. He had to pass checks with the bank manager and felt he had the same right to do his checks. 
Right or wrong, I do feel it was his right to choose. It's his property. It is not the private sectors job to provide social housing. I imagine in this day if age if he is still renting properties he will price them accordingly so only "his type of tenant" could apply. 
OP your time would be better served asking where there is no social housing provision anymore and why private landlords are expected to pick up the bill 

[Deleted User]

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. 

I’m a landlord but I can’t and don’t speak for all landlords. To the best of my knowledge no one claiming benefits has applied to rent my property and the property has never been advertised “no DSS” least of all because that department hadn’t existed since 2001. I suppose that as the rent for my property is quite a bit more than the LHA people in receipt of the LHA wouldn’t bother applying in the first place. The way the LHA is set makes the majority of properties in that local area unaffordable to those in receipt of it. 

If I had to hazard a guess as to why landlords want you to have a guarantor or be in work it would be so that they had someone to chase in the event you fell into arrears or damaged the property.  With a working person there’s the possibility of getting an attachment of earnings through the court or a charging order if a guarantor owns property. Someone 100% reliant on benefits is far more difficult to recover money from. 

You’ve mentioned a couple of times about getting loans waiting for UC to come through but that’s not been the experience of the people I know who’ve had to claim UC for various reasons. It’s taken an age to get any money at all and if it weren’t for friends and family helping out they’d have lost the roof over their heads, not had anything to eat or been able to heat their homes. Maybe this hasn’t been your experience but it certainly has with people I know. 

The current tenant in my property does have a dog though.  

gagahouse

tasticz 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. 

So people cannot choose who they want to do business with? 

In my opinion, people feel more secure renting to a professional individuals as they are less likely to cause problems that can affect their own careers. People on benefits have always been portrayed as problematic and nobody wants any headaches or problems when doing business. 

LL's who do not wish to rent to those on benefits will simply allow them to view the properties but will still rent them to those not on benefits where there are multiple applicants for a property. The LL's has the right to rent their property to whomever they wish and good luck proving they discriminated against a benefit applicant when they decided to rent it to someone else. Legislation and government policy has moved more and more in favour of tenants and this has already caused many LL's to exit the sector. Ideas like the OP's will just accelerate this trend further reducing supply of available properties making it harder for both professionals and benefit renters.

Whilst I agree with OP's diagnosis that the current situation is a result of government policy since the almost ceasing of social housing provision by councils, this will not improve anytime soon when household formation from a combination of natural population growth and net migration outpaces new housing supply. Last time I looked at the stats in 2019 247K new houses were required based on average household size but only 170K new houses were built. Add on top the accumulated over the years mass of people in temporary accommodation and I would say to the OP careful what you wish for. Your idea may be well intended but the consequences will make life more difficult for renters who already are currently struggling to rent.

Markneath

In my experience getting rent paid consistently by tenants on benefits doesn’t happen, somewhere along the line they miss a payment or two and never catch up, its always late or in arrears from that point.
I’ve never had rent issues with tenants not on benefits but a few issues with some on them so now avoid. 
Certain things I tend to avoid with tenants now and I don't see how the government can force me to take someone I don’t wan’t.