NO DSS Letting Agents and Landlords

Jumblebumble

David2710 said:

Following two recent court rulings in which letting agencies were fined for discriminating and rejecting applicants claiming out of work benefits I was curious to see if anything has changed. Having searched 'DSS' in Trovit, Zoopla and Right Move here are the results. 

Out of the hundreds of mostly studio and 1 bedroom properties advertised just a tiny handful offered DSS Welcome without pre-conditions but the properties were typically overpriced of postage stamp size and were offering shared bathroom and kitchen facilities. The 98 percent of properties offering DSS accommodation also required the tenant was working a minimum 20hrs and had a guarantor.

Because many sick & disabled don't work the required 20hrs a week and don't have a guarantor they are left with a very narrow and poor choice of properties. This despite the fact most will have a good record of rental payments, good landlord references and a steady income. And many could no doubt pay 3 or 6 months in advance if the option were available.   

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.

I am really scratching my head on this because my inevitable conclusion leads me to believe this policy is based purely on prejudice, snobbery and or complete ignorance of recent changes and rulings. 

All the old excuses about 'having to wait for payment' does not apply to ESA or PIP and even UC offers claimants an immediate loan payment, or that old chestnut about 'my lender doesn’t allow it' has been dealt with already, and the DWP has recently changed the rules so rent can be paid direct to the landlord. Landlords can also apply directly for the rent to be paid directly if the tenant falls into arrears by 2 months. 

Before I contact my MP regarding this matter and how to legislate against ALL types of discrimination, I would be grateful if any landlord reading this can offer an explanation as to why they accept students, pets, smokers, part-time workers but NOT sick and disabled tenants claiming out of work benefits. Thanks for reading.  

I personally think you are wasting your time
Landlords are always going to prefer professional tenants who do not want CCjs
Think about this
Many people on this forum are in favour of tenants making landlords life a misery by 
Seeing if they can get the tenant awarded multiple amounts of the deposit because the landlord made a mistake.
Encouraging tenants who cannot pay the rent to stay as long as they can.
Why do such people do this with no consideration for the landlord
Because they can
Why does a landlord discriminate with no consideration to the tenant even though it is illegal
Because they can
Why do you think a landlord wants to go through the hassle of obtaining the rent direct from DSS ?

squizz11

Jumblebumble said:

David2710 said:

Following two recent court rulings in which letting agencies were fined for discriminating and rejecting applicants claiming out of work benefits I was curious to see if anything has changed. Having searched 'DSS' in Trovit, Zoopla and Right Move here are the results. 

Out of the hundreds of mostly studio and 1 bedroom properties advertised just a tiny handful offered DSS Welcome without pre-conditions but the properties were typically overpriced of postage stamp size and were offering shared bathroom and kitchen facilities. The 98 percent of properties offering DSS accommodation also required the tenant was working a minimum 20hrs and had a guarantor.

Because many sick & disabled don't work the required 20hrs a week and don't have a guarantor they are left with a very narrow and poor choice of properties. This despite the fact most will have a good record of rental payments, good landlord references and a steady income. And many could no doubt pay 3 or 6 months in advance if the option were available.   

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.

I am really scratching my head on this because my inevitable conclusion leads me to believe this policy is based purely on prejudice, snobbery and or complete ignorance of recent changes and rulings. 

All the old excuses about 'having to wait for payment' does not apply to ESA or PIP and even UC offers claimants an immediate loan payment, or that old chestnut about 'my lender doesn’t allow it' has been dealt with already, and the DWP has recently changed the rules so rent can be paid direct to the landlord. Landlords can also apply directly for the rent to be paid directly if the tenant falls into arrears by 2 months. 

Before I contact my MP regarding this matter and how to legislate against ALL types of discrimination, I would be grateful if any landlord reading this can offer an explanation as to why they accept students, pets, smokers, part-time workers but NOT sick and disabled tenants claiming out of work benefits. Thanks for reading.  

I personally think you are wasting your time
Landlords are always going to prefer professional tenants who do not want CCjs
Think about this
Many people on this forum are in favour of tenants making landlords life a misery by 
Seeing if they can get the tenant awarded multiple amounts of the deposit because the landlord made a mistake.
Encouraging tenants who cannot pay the rent to stay as long as they can.
Why do such people do this with no consideration for the landlord
Because they can
Why does a landlord discriminate with no consideration to the tenant even though it is illegal
Because they can
Why do you think a landlord wants to go through the hassle of obtaining the rent direct from DSS ?

but do you not think each case should be judged on Merit,   not every benefit tenant is like this,   there are some, like myself , who have an exemplary record but because we get a UC top up on top of wages we are tarred with the same brush.

justworriedabit

squizz11 said:

justworriedabit said:

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 hear you. What do you prose changes?  Let's someone in your situation was rented out a property, they then stopped paying the rent and then trashed it and it took months to get them out - who would pay the thousands to the LL that they have lost?
Have you watched any of the rental docs on tv? 
I'm sure you are nice but let's say you had a property to rent out had a mortgage on it and one on the house you lived in and the rental was a pension plan for you both and you did not get rental income for 9 months and it easily happens and on top of it place was trashed, legal, evictions and repair fees and two mortgages to pay  - would you have the 15 odd k to see you through?
I hope you can see where I am coming from and I hope you get  nice place and nice LL's
Good luck

I've paid my rent for 14 years without one missed or late payment,  why would someone like me stop paying my rent.   I have had one landlord all that time.  surely that shows commitment.   We have excellent references ,  Husband has been in the same job for years. 

Landlords need to look past the UC and take cases on Merit and rental History,  my dog even comes with references.

I get the reluctance but I'm on a no fault eviction as my landlord is in difficulties as he has two mortgages and job issues and I now have 3 weeks till it can be taken further,   with two autistic children the stress and uncertainty is crazy 
Also to add while a professional couple can look great they can also lose their job and go onto UC and  don't even have to tell their landlords whereas someone like me does.

Good afternoon
To be very clear my post was trying to help you and highlight concerns LL's have in general and not you.
You have paid rent on time for years that is good but please do not tell me that you can guarantee that for the future.
EG - you could break a bone, become ill, be defrauded, lose your income and more.

Just a suggestion, why not save up more money for a bigger deposit?  
FYI - I do not want to work but have to to enjoy our life style and me and Mr J have worked many more hours than the approx 35 hours a week he does now. We did not go on a proper hols for years. We never by on credit but pay off our cc without interest why pay 5k for something that cost 3k? Just ideas for you

So I will ask you again. What changes do you propose and this is the second time I have asked.?
FYI - I hear you but it is how it is.

TBH, we would not rent out to you as we'd only prefer couple as there is less risk of damage/etc - just being honest and if I was not being honest that would not help you how some LL's let out their property.

I hope it works out for you and please do not forget I am trying to help but being honest.
We would only rent out within the law and it is not our fault if a LA asks what type of T you want.  
x

allison445

I rented the same property from a private landlord  for 19 years over the years I was on and off benefits  I had to provide a refrences from my emplyer and a rent summary from my housing association to show rent was upto date before I could move in.
2 years ago when the property became too big and too expensive I decided it was time to move.
I was not on benefits but as my income fluctuated letting agents wanted bank statements and wage slips for the previous 12 months and a guarantor most of the prices for smaller properties were for more than I was already paying 
I was lucky as after a few months on a housing association list I was offered something affordable but even then they asked my landlord for a refrence when I applied and they asked for another refrence 9 months later the day before offering me a property and I had to pay a months rent in advance before the keys were given to me
Unfortunately this is nothing new there is really no way a landlord can 100% make sure the tennent they chose will pay the rent some may have already had experience of how unpredictable the benefits system is I do not think this is anything personal they are just protecting themselves as best they can.
At the end of the day its the landlord who is limiting there options as many people get some form of benefit top up.
If a landlord refused to accept me it would be their loss im a great tennant

justworriedabit

allison445 said:

I rented the same property from a private landlord  for 19 years over the years I was on and off benefits  I had to provide a refrences from my emplyer and a rent summary from my housing association to show rent was upto date before I could move in.
2 years ago when the property became too big and too expensive I decided it was time to move.
I was not on benefits but as my income fluctuated letting agents wanted bank statements and wage slips for the previous 12 months and a guarantor most of the prices for smaller properties were for more than I was already paying 
I was lucky as after a few months on a housing association list I was offered something affordable but even then they asked my landlord for a refrence when I applied and they asked for another refrence 9 months later the day before offering me a property and I had to pay a months rent in advance before the keys were given to me
Unfortunately this is nothing new there is really no way a landlord can 100% make sure the tennent they chose will pay the rent some may have already had experience of how unpredictable the benefits system is I do not think this is anything personal they are just protecting themselves as best they can.
At the end of the day its the landlord who is limiting there options as many people get some form of benefit top up.
If a landlord refused to accept me it would be their loss im a great tennant

Great post, thank you.
As my mum says, "don't give them your business, move along and you will find a better deal."

squizz11

justworriedabit said:

squizz11 said:

justworriedabit said:

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 hear you. What do you prose changes?  Let's someone in your situation was rented out a property, they then stopped paying the rent and then trashed it and it took months to get them out - who would pay the thousands to the LL that they have lost?
Have you watched any of the rental docs on tv? 
I'm sure you are nice but let's say you had a property to rent out had a mortgage on it and one on the house you lived in and the rental was a pension plan for you both and you did not get rental income for 9 months and it easily happens and on top of it place was trashed, legal, evictions and repair fees and two mortgages to pay  - would you have the 15 odd k to see you through?
I hope you can see where I am coming from and I hope you get  nice place and nice LL's
Good luck

I've paid my rent for 14 years without one missed or late payment,  why would someone like me stop paying my rent.   I have had one landlord all that time.  surely that shows commitment.   We have excellent references ,  Husband has been in the same job for years. 

Landlords need to look past the UC and take cases on Merit and rental History,  my dog even comes with references.

I get the reluctance but I'm on a no fault eviction as my landlord is in difficulties as he has two mortgages and job issues and I now have 3 weeks till it can be taken further,   with two autistic children the stress and uncertainty is crazy 
Also to add while a professional couple can look great they can also lose their job and go onto UC and  don't even have to tell their landlords whereas someone like me does.

Good afternoon
To be very clear my post was trying to help you and highlight concerns LL's have in general and not you.
You have paid rent on time for years that is good but please do not tell me that you can guarantee that for the future.
EG - you could break a bone, become ill, be defrauded, lose your income and more.

Just a suggestion, why not save up more money for a bigger deposit?  
FYI - I do not want to work but have to to enjoy our life style and me and Mr J have worked many more hours than the approx 35 hours a week he does now. We did not go on a proper hols for years. We never by on credit but pay off our cc without interest why pay 5k for something that cost 3k? Just ideas for you

So I will ask you again. What changes do you propose and this is the second time I have asked.?
FYI - I hear you but it is how it is.

TBH, we would not rent out to you as we'd only prefer couple as there is less risk of damage/etc - just being honest and if I was not being honest that would not help you how some LL's let out their property.

I hope it works out for you and please do not forget I am trying to help but being honest.
We would only rent out within the law and it is not our fault if a LA asks what type of T you want.  
x

As I said before,  judge each Tennant on Merit, not judge someone on how their money is obtained.    anyone's circumstances can change including professional tenants,  anyone can break a bone and not work,  can anyone guarantee anything.   we are a working household ,  we just need a bit of help with the rent.   and if my husband did break his leg and couldn't work already being on UC means we can still pay our rent,   someone else may not be able. 
please explain how we would be anymore of a risk than say a business man who one day had everything then a pandemic came along and took everything
  

justworriedabit

squizz11 said:

justworriedabit said:

squizz11 said:

justworriedabit said:

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 hear you. What do you prose changes?  Let's someone in your situation was rented out a property, they then stopped paying the rent and then trashed it and it took months to get them out - who would pay the thousands to the LL that they have lost?
Have you watched any of the rental docs on tv? 
I'm sure you are nice but let's say you had a property to rent out had a mortgage on it and one on the house you lived in and the rental was a pension plan for you both and you did not get rental income for 9 months and it easily happens and on top of it place was trashed, legal, evictions and repair fees and two mortgages to pay  - would you have the 15 odd k to see you through?
I hope you can see where I am coming from and I hope you get  nice place and nice LL's
Good luck

I've paid my rent for 14 years without one missed or late payment,  why would someone like me stop paying my rent.   I have had one landlord all that time.  surely that shows commitment.   We have excellent references ,  Husband has been in the same job for years. 

Landlords need to look past the UC and take cases on Merit and rental History,  my dog even comes with references.

I get the reluctance but I'm on a no fault eviction as my landlord is in difficulties as he has two mortgages and job issues and I now have 3 weeks till it can be taken further,   with two autistic children the stress and uncertainty is crazy 
Also to add while a professional couple can look great they can also lose their job and go onto UC and  don't even have to tell their landlords whereas someone like me does.

Good afternoon
To be very clear my post was trying to help you and highlight concerns LL's have in general and not you.
You have paid rent on time for years that is good but please do not tell me that you can guarantee that for the future.
EG - you could break a bone, become ill, be defrauded, lose your income and more.

Just a suggestion, why not save up more money for a bigger deposit?  
FYI - I do not want to work but have to to enjoy our life style and me and Mr J have worked many more hours than the approx 35 hours a week he does now. We did not go on a proper hols for years. We never by on credit but pay off our cc without interest why pay 5k for something that cost 3k? Just ideas for you

So I will ask you again. What changes do you propose and this is the second time I have asked.?
FYI - I hear you but it is how it is.

TBH, we would not rent out to you as we'd only prefer couple as there is less risk of damage/etc - just being honest and if I was not being honest that would not help you how some LL's let out their property.

I hope it works out for you and please do not forget I am trying to help but being honest.
We would only rent out within the law and it is not our fault if a LA asks what type of T you want.  
x

As I said before,  judge each Tennant on Merit, not judge someone on how their money is obtained.    anyone's circumstances can change including professional tenants,  anyone can break a bone and not work,  can anyone guarantee anything.   we are a working household ,  we just need a bit of help with the rent.   and if my husband did break his leg and couldn't work already being on UC means we can still pay our rent,   someone else may not be able. 
please explain how we would be anymore of a risk than say a business man who one day had everything then a pandemic came along and took everything
  

Thank you.
If I may suggest and idea. Get this gov to set up bonds backed by the government for T's like you that have a good record of paying their dues. The bond would kick in for a certain amount if things went wrong.
Take care and I hope it works out for you.

David2710

anselld said:

I would suggest the main reason LL do not like letting to benefit tenants is not anything personal against the tenants, it is because Councils have a long track record of making life difficult for benefit claimants which then has a knock on effect on their ability to pay rent.  Furthermore, Councils regularly advise tenants to stretch eviction to the full extent of the law.
Councils may be forced into this behaviour by the Government policy and social housing shortage, but none-the-less it makes it inevitable that Landlords will avoid operating in that environment if they have a choice.

You make a valid point. I remember a similar government policy that forced people on Job Seekers Allowance to apply for jobs that were completely unsuitable or lose their benefits. Employers were rightly furious by the flood of CV's and were often quoted in the Tory press blaming the JSA applicant and not the the DWP. They would then justify employing only East Europeans who they said were better qualified and more diligent. It was a ruse of course to hire cheap labour but it suited their needs. One thing worth pointing out, yes the council do encourage tenants to be forcibly evicted because that then gives the tenant more points towards social housing as a homeless person in temporary accommodation. If the tenant doesn't pay rent however they will be deemed intentionally homeless and won't receive any help at all from the council. So tenants not paying rent until eviction are quite rare occurrences, 

David2710

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. 

"People on benefits have always been portrayed as problematic". You make my point exactly. It's all based on prejudice and bigotry.  Don't believe everything you read in the Sun. 

David2710

Markneath said:

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.

The same can be said of self-employed people and those on irregular, part-time or zero hour contracts, I include junior lawyers and Barristers in that at risk bracket. It's not easy balancing a budget on £73 pounds a week especially when benefits and LHA have been frozen whereas utility bills and rents haven't. I would suggest the only 'professional tenant' that's a reasonable safe bet at present are those working in the public sector such as the police and Medical professional in the NHS. A blanket ban on LHA is not just discriminating against the unemployed, the sick and disabled but anyone on low and or insecure pay.