Private landlords, do you accept housing benefits?

BungalowBel

I would accept HB or UC from an existing tenant if they had always paid rent on time beforehand but not from  a new one. I have to protect both my asset and my mental health.

Gycraig

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Gycraig said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

It is a breach of the Equality Act 2010 to discriminate against a potential tenant on the basis they are in receipt of benefits.  This woman may be in receipt of housing benefit for her current home and might be unaware that when her situation changes she will be moving to universal credit.  That sounds more plausible that accusing the woman of straight up lying.

Hi

You are possibly correct but as per my above post, those on benefits will not meet the affordability criteria for any of our properties.

Thanks

Whilst there are some applicants you could legitimately reject on the basis of not meeting affordability there are those in receipt of benefits who can afford to top-up the rent so they may well meet your affordability criteria.  You'd then need to come up with some legitimate reason for rejecting them other than because they receive benefits or you could find yourself being taken to court as has happened in York and Birmingham when people have had a blanket ban on benefit claimants.

You don’t need to provide a reason though ? Most places get loads of applicants for each rental. 

If some suspects you have discriminated against them, for whatever protected characteristic covered by the Equality Act, they can take you to court.

Yer, but you don’t legally need to provide a reason, if you get 20 applicants you can pick whichever you want and in reality for any reason as long as you don’t say it’s because of a protected characteristic. 

The law and the reality are completely different especially with the rental market the way it is. 

_Penny_Dreadful

Gycraig said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Gycraig said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

It is a breach of the Equality Act 2010 to discriminate against a potential tenant on the basis they are in receipt of benefits.  This woman may be in receipt of housing benefit for her current home and might be unaware that when her situation changes she will be moving to universal credit.  That sounds more plausible that accusing the woman of straight up lying.

Hi

You are possibly correct but as per my above post, those on benefits will not meet the affordability criteria for any of our properties.

Thanks

Whilst there are some applicants you could legitimately reject on the basis of not meeting affordability there are those in receipt of benefits who can afford to top-up the rent so they may well meet your affordability criteria.  You'd then need to come up with some legitimate reason for rejecting them other than because they receive benefits or you could find yourself being taken to court as has happened in York and Birmingham when people have had a blanket ban on benefit claimants.

You don’t need to provide a reason though ? Most places get loads of applicants for each rental. 

If some suspects you have discriminated against them, for whatever protected characteristic covered by the Equality Act, they can take you to court.

Yer, but you don’t legally need to provide a reason, if you get 20 applicants you can pick whichever you want and in reality for any reason as long as you don’t say it’s because of a protected characteristic. 

The law and the reality are completely different especially with the rental market the way it is. 

It does not matter if you do not give a reason as to why you selected any of the other applicants over another.  If the person rejected suspects it is because they are being discriminated against then they can take you to court.  Many people probably won't bother because they are too busy looking for a home but tenants in receipt of benefits have successfully taken landlords and letting agents to court over being discriminated.

Silvertabby

I thought it was now illegal for landlords to specify " No HB"?

That said, when a BTL on our estate was advertised, the specification was that the rent of £1,200 per month mustn't exceed 30% of the household income.  I suppose that would rule out most HB claimants.

dimbo61

The current crisis in the rental market and other reasons are making it very difficult for people on benefits to find a home.
The local housing benefit rates  in many parts of the country are way below the market rate due to such high demand for housing in the UK.
We have in the past rented to a lovely lady on benefits over a 4 year period and besides  waiting nearly 3 months before receiving the first rental payment it was stopped on 4 occassions  over the period the tenant lived in the house.
The cost of living crisis with energy bills increasing by 50/60% is only the latest issue facing LL.
Many are on Interest only mortgages and the BOE base rate has increased from 0.1% to 3.5% in the last 12 months.
Like the 1.4 million home owners who are worried about the huge rise in the cost of borrowing Landlords are in the same situation.

elsien

It is. And as is clear from the discussion so far, landlords aren’t so daft as to put no benefits on the adverts. They just decline them and give a different reason.

diystarter7

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

It is a breach of the Equality Act 2010 to discriminate against a potential tenant on the basis they are in receipt of benefits.  This woman may be in receipt of housing benefit for her current home and might be unaware that when her situation changes she will be moving to universal credit.  That sounds more plausible that accusing the woman of straight up lying.

Hi

You are possibly correct but as per my above post, those on benefits will not meet the affordability criteria for any of our properties.

Thanks

Whilst there are some applicants you could legitimately reject on the basis of not meeting affordability there are those in receipt of benefits who can afford to top-up the rent so they may well meet your affordability criteria.  You'd then need to come up with some legitimate reason for rejecting them other than because they receive benefits or you could find yourself being taken to court as has happened in York and Birmingham when people have had a blanket ban on benefit claimants.

Hi
I doubt it as the areas/council areas we rent out in they could not. Even if they came close, though not needed to let out for about two years, we get several 101% on paper apps as we often advertise about 5/6% below going rates, we opt for those in work, no pets, not smoking, don't need a guarantor etc etc, why should we pay more on insurance, ie buildings, contents and legal cover by taking on someone that may be out of work on benefits when we have a big choice.
I've already stated that if an existing t/T's were good people paing rent on time, valid reasons told us about stuff needed looking at asap etc, we'd keep them up even if it and it would meant delays in rent and cost us more in insurances etc.

Thanks

diystarter7

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Gycraig said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

It is a breach of the Equality Act 2010 to discriminate against a potential tenant on the basis they are in receipt of benefits.  This woman may be in receipt of housing benefit for her current home and might be unaware that when her situation changes she will be moving to universal credit.  That sounds more plausible that accusing the woman of straight up lying.

Hi

You are possibly correct but as per my above post, those on benefits will not meet the affordability criteria for any of our properties.

Thanks

Whilst there are some applicants you could legitimately reject on the basis of not meeting affordability there are those in receipt of benefits who can afford to top-up the rent so they may well meet your affordability criteria.  You'd then need to come up with some legitimate reason for rejecting them other than because they receive benefits or you could find yourself being taken to court as has happened in York and Birmingham when people have had a blanket ban on benefit claimants.

You don’t need to provide a reason though ? Most places get loads of applicants for each rental. 

If some suspects you have discriminated against them, for whatever protected characteristic covered by the Equality Act, they can take you to court.

Hi

Sure and why not. Like most good LL's like us, we have nothing to fear other than not being paid rent, possibly the place being sub let and T pocketing the money, trashing the place and taking months and loads of money to get them out.  I guess the "law" would chase the T's for us and get our money back, could easily amount to well over 10k and that is real money, money stolen in effect from a good LL. Like most LL's, we are not rich, no one gave us a penny nor did we want that its via hard work and as per MoneySaving Expertmantra and I quote "Before you spend, remember the MSE Money Mantras. Ask yourself, do I need it?
that we are were we are,

Life is not fair but most can make it fair especially in the UK if they looked after their money rather than trying to run before they can walk.

For the sake of clarity those that may wish to quote edited versions or twist posts, yes, we have atm good T's but they stay for a long time with us as they know they are getting an excellent and cost effect service and respect.

Thanks

MobileSaver

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Gycraig said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Gycraig said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

It is a breach of the Equality Act 2010 to discriminate against a potential tenant on the basis they are in receipt of benefits.  This woman may be in receipt of housing benefit for her current home and might be unaware that when her situation changes she will be moving to universal credit.  That sounds more plausible that accusing the woman of straight up lying.

Hi

You are possibly correct but as per my above post, those on benefits will not meet the affordability criteria for any of our properties.

Thanks

Whilst there are some applicants you could legitimately reject on the basis of not meeting affordability there are those in receipt of benefits who can afford to top-up the rent so they may well meet your affordability criteria.  You'd then need to come up with some legitimate reason for rejecting them other than because they receive benefits or you could find yourself being taken to court as has happened in York and Birmingham when people have had a blanket ban on benefit claimants.

You don’t need to provide a reason though ? Most places get loads of applicants for each rental. 

If some suspects you have discriminated against them, for whatever protected characteristic covered by the Equality Act, they can take you to court.

Yer, but you don’t legally need to provide a reason, if you get 20 applicants you can pick whichever you want and in reality for any reason as long as you don’t say it’s because of a protected characteristic.

If the person rejected suspects it is because they are being discriminated against then they can take you to court.  Many people probably won't bother because they are too busy looking for a home but tenants in receipt of benefits have successfully taken landlords and letting agents to court over being discriminated.

You can take someone to court for almost any reason but it would be a pretty foolish thing to do unless you have actual proof; all it would do is cost you time, money and stress with practically zero chance of success. I suspect that's the reason most people won't bother.

I'm no expert but my understanding is that virtually all successful tenancy court cases regarding discrimination are to do with disability and to be honest a landlord (or any business owner) gets what they deserve if they don't make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.

_Penny_Dreadful

MobileSaver said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Gycraig said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

Gycraig said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

diystarter7 said:

_Penny_Dreadful said:

It is a breach of the Equality Act 2010 to discriminate against a potential tenant on the basis they are in receipt of benefits.  This woman may be in receipt of housing benefit for her current home and might be unaware that when her situation changes she will be moving to universal credit.  That sounds more plausible that accusing the woman of straight up lying.

Hi

You are possibly correct but as per my above post, those on benefits will not meet the affordability criteria for any of our properties.

Thanks

Whilst there are some applicants you could legitimately reject on the basis of not meeting affordability there are those in receipt of benefits who can afford to top-up the rent so they may well meet your affordability criteria.  You'd then need to come up with some legitimate reason for rejecting them other than because they receive benefits or you could find yourself being taken to court as has happened in York and Birmingham when people have had a blanket ban on benefit claimants.

You don’t need to provide a reason though ? Most places get loads of applicants for each rental. 

If some suspects you have discriminated against them, for whatever protected characteristic covered by the Equality Act, they can take you to court.

Yer, but you don’t legally need to provide a reason, if you get 20 applicants you can pick whichever you want and in reality for any reason as long as you don’t say it’s because of a protected characteristic.

If the person rejected suspects it is because they are being discriminated against then they can take you to court.  Many people probably won't bother because they are too busy looking for a home but tenants in receipt of benefits have successfully taken landlords and letting agents to court over being discriminated.

You can take someone to court for almost any reason but it would be a pretty foolish thing to do unless you have actual proof; all it would do is cost you time, money and stress with practically zero chance of success. I suspect that's the reason most people won't bother.

I'm no expert but my understanding is that virtually all successful tenancy court cases regarding discrimination are to do with disability and to be honest a landlord (or any business owner) gets what they deserve if they don't make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.

The cases I know of that have been successful have been backed by Shelter so it doesn't cost the claimant anything.  The successful cases haven't just been based on disability either, one case was based on being discriminated as woman.

The whole purpose of this thread was someone asking if other landlords would accept tenants in receipt of benefits.  All I did was point out that to discriminate and have a blanket ban on benefit claimants is unlawful.  Seems several landlords here have a few japes and wheezes to continue to discriminate against people but that doesn't mean what they are doing is not discriminatory.