Why don't landlords like DSS?

FBaby · 7 October 2017 at 7:58AM

trouble evicting

This and more, but this alone is enough of a reason. It's not just about the costs that comes as a result, but the massive stress that goes with dealing with evicting a tenant, who could be totally in the wrong but knowing how to play the system and as such getting away with totally unreasonable behaviour. This can happen from people who appeared to be very well spirited before, but easily turn into the tenant from hell when they suddenly don't get all they want.

Then after you've dealt with unpaid rent for month, legal costs etc..., the high chance of getting your house back in a total state, you get to rehearsed the fact that you will never see a penny of the money they owe you despite the ruling against them, because they will claim poverty and at best pay you £10 a month.

If you have a property that can attract professional people, who would want to avoid a ccj at all cost, then why wouldn't you want to go for that easier option? Once again, LLs are told over and over to treat being a LL as a business transaction. If you have the choice of buying two cars at the same price, one has half the mileage than the other and is in a much better condition, would you decide to buy the second one just because you want to be fair to the buyer who doesn't have as much income than the first one? No, you want the best car for the best price. That's how landlords operate too.

Pixie5740 · 7 October 2017 at 8:32AM

Car1980 wrote: »

DSS is in common parlance though, like MOT

The Ministry of Transport test and testing centres are still officially (on government documents) used terms even though there hasn't been a Ministry of Transport since 1970 whereas the Department of Social Security hasn't existed since 2001 nor does it live on in any official government documents. The department has not existed for 16 years. There are people approaching their 40's who were still in primary school when the Department of Social Security was dissolved who therefore would never have had the chance to use the services of said government department.

The terms DSS is generally only used by lazy and ignorant landlords and letting agents. I suppose all the landlords and letting agents who continue to use the term "DSS" also pay their taxes to the Inland Revenue.

If landlords won't accept people claiming housing benefit then that's what the advert should say. Just using a lazy term like DSS makes it sound as though they won't rent to anyone claiming benefits. Let's not let to all those pensioners and the raft of benefits they are allowed to claim and whilst we are at it why not exclude anyone claiming child benefit or working tax credits.

There seems to be an assumption that just because someone is claiming housing benefit that they are out or work however, It is entirely possible to be in work and still be eligible for housing benefit. We somehow have a whole section of society called the "working poor" 1 in 8 workers who are now living in poverty, in part, to a combination of low wages and ever-increasing rents.

There also appears to be the assumption that those in receipt of housing benefit will not take care of the property. I would have thought that in the majority of cases the opposite would be true. Since it's so difficult to find landlords willing to accept housing benefit claimants the tenants would do all they can to ensure that they can continue living in the property for as long as possible.

gycraig_2 · 7 October 2017 at 10:03AM

takes far to long to boot problem tenants out, people on housing benefits generally have less to lose and aren't affected by ccjs etc.

Looking into being a landlord myself I want to carefully vet my tenants I know it's not 100 percent who will rip you off but watching can't pay etc you do wonder how the landlords thought renting to them was a good idea.

Benefits are also a political thing so if you have ten houses with 6 housing benefit tenants in and they decide to move goal posts / lower housing benefits you are gonna be in a bad place.

alleycat465 · 8 October 2017 at 2:16AM

I asked an agent this and they said insurance reason primarily as I'm entitled to £45 a month LHA the rest I pay (I work but low wage and lone parent) and also because of the cap and (his words) wha some people don't realise is miss A for example is receiving £15,000 a year in benefits for her and 2 kids that's not in her hand, that's everything including rent and if they are in the city it's not uncommon for rent to be more in a week than what some of us pay a month. Even though mine was only part apparently that made me more likely to have rent arrears, I disagree as I've always been in advance but hey nvm!

FBaby · 8 October 2017 at 7:48AM

The other issue is that if you have someone in their 30s, earning £30K, if they were to lose their job, they would be more likely to find another one earning a similar amount.

If you rent to a single mum, who earns £15K and receives £15k in benefits, it becomes a problem if for whatever reasons her benefits are stopped as it will likely be harder for her to be able to make up the difference.

This is what happened to friends. They rented to a family of 3 children, through an agency, who confirmed they met the income test, but she failed to ask details and didn't realise that took tax credits into account. The problem is that 2 oldest children were 17 and 18, and within a year, both left education, so their tax credits got seriously reduced. The inevitable happened, they prioritised other things and then got to the point when they said they couldn't pay the rent any longer. It took them 6 months to evict as they waited to be rehoused by the council and the council would only do when evicted by bailiffs.

Murphybear · 8 October 2017 at 8:01AM

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The Ministry of Transport test and testing centres are still officially (on government documents) used terms even though there hasn't been a Ministry of Transport since 1970 whereas the Department of Social Security hasn't existed since 2001 nor does it live on in any official government documents. The department has not existed for 16 years. There are people approaching their 40's who were still in primary school when the Department of Social Security was dissolved who therefore would never have had the chance to use the services of said government department.

The terms DSS is generally only used by lazy and ignorant landlords and letting agents. I suppose all the landlords and letting agents who continue to use the term "DSS" also pay their taxes to the Inland Revenue.

If landlords won't accept people claiming housing benefit then that's what the advert should say. Just using a lazy term like DSS makes it sound as though they won't rent to anyone claiming benefits. Let's not let to all those pensioners and the raft of benefits they are allowed to claim and whilst we are at it why not exclude anyone claiming child benefit or working tax credits.

There seems to be an assumption that just because someone is claiming housing benefit that they are out or work however, It is entirely possible to be in work and still be eligible for housing benefit. We somehow have a whole section of society called the "working poor" 1 in 8 workers who are now living in poverty, in part, to a combination of low wages and ever-increasing rents.

There also appears to be the assumption that those in receipt of housing benefit will not take care of the property. I would have thought that in the majority of cases the opposite would be true. Since it's so difficult to find landlords willing to accept housing benefit claimants the tenants would do all they can to ensure that they can continue living in the property for as long as possible.

What raft of benefits? I get £100 in the winter and a free bus pass I can't use (no busses)

GwylimT · 8 October 2017 at 8:07AM

Murphybear wrote: »

What raft of benefits? I get £100 in the winter and a free bus pass I can't use (no busses)

No state pension?

haras_nosirrah · 8 October 2017 at 8:18AM

I rent to a tenant on housing benefit. It didn't start that way. I rent privately not via an agent. It was my first time buyer home that I rented when I bought with my husband.

He has been in situ since 2009, always kept the property spotless (ex army) and is a gentleman in his 60's.

In 2013 he had 3 heart attacks and was out of work for a while. He got 3k behind on the rent but rather than evicting him he is now paying his nomal rent using housing benefit and is topping up £50 a month towards the arrears. I wasn't comfortable evicting a sick man who had for the prior 4 years been a model tenant. I also knew that it would mean I didn't get the arrears back. He is down to something like £1300 in arrears now but has made every payment since that bad spell on time and in full.

I have kept the rent low (he pays about £150 a month below market value) but as I have no letting agent fees to pay and he keeps the property nice with very few issues I am ok with that. I only raise the rent £25 a month every two years. The agreement we have is that in return for the low rent he is responsible for the day to day things in the house (e.g. when the shower broke he fixed it) and I am responsible for the big stuff (when the back door failed I got a new one, boiler etc) Apart from an annual check of the property I rarely hear from him and he gives me no hassle. Working full time with two young children that is worth a lot to me.

I have to pay a bit more for my insurance because he has housing benefit. Also I am aware that eviction would be difficult - realistically I plan on keeping the house until my children are of an age where they want to buy - I then plan to sell the house and split the proceeds. I don't think the tenant will still be around in 25 years due to his health so I don't think I would need to go down the eviction route - he certainly wouldn't get another property for the rent he is paying for mine.

I wouldn't have deliberately sought out a tenant on housing benefit but to me having a tenant who looks after the house and treats it as his own and gives me little hassle is worth getting a lower rent for. Not all housing benefit tenants are difficult - mine had a change of circumstance which can happen to anyone.

Murphybear · 8 October 2017 at 2:09PM

GwylimT wrote: »

No state pension?

That's not a benefit any more than a salary is. And it's considerably less

Pixie5740 · 8 October 2017 at 3:29PM

Murphybear wrote: »

That's not a benefit any more than a salary is. And it's considerably less

The state pension is benefit and is defined in law as a benefit.

The use of the word “benefit” for retirement pension (latterly known as State Pension) has always been classified in law from the time of the1946 National Insurance Act, which applied from the inception of the National Insurance scheme.

Furthermore, the term “contributory benefit”, forms the legislative framework of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Section 20 of that Act is entitled “Descriptions of contributory benefits”. Contributory benefits under Part II of that Act are listed, and the sixth is retirement pensions.

In addition, the introduction of the new State Pension from 6 April 2016 is also classified as a “benefit” under Section 1(1) of the Pensions Act 2014.

Currently the state pension is universal but I predict that for those of us under 40 it will either be means tested or have vanished completely by the time we retire, if we ever get to retire, which is what all the auto-enrolment schemes and LISA are gearing us up for.

Why don't landlords like DSS?

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free