However, many landlords will understandably baulk at paying extra insurance premiums if they take DSS tenants. THAT is not going to help the tenants either. However, I suspect that the biggest problems faced by landlords with DSS tenants are the problems with local authorities.
For example, comments on the Landlord Today report here make the following points:. After 10 years of accepting DSS tenants we stopped in Jan after too many bad experiences- not with tenants but with councils. Why would any landlord voluntarily let to a tenant where there are likely to be all these problems, when there are plenty of non-DSS tenants around?
They are private individuals, not charities. Their duty is to their own families. The real problem is that instead of social housing stock being increased, which is what is desperately needed, it is actually being reduced. Thus completely ignoring the needs of DSS and other low-income families who have nowhere else to go.
It goes without saying that Local Authorities and Housing Associations should be encouraged to build and acquire property to let to benefit tenants. Finally, there are still I hope some private landlords, generally landlords with larger portfolios, who are prepared to take on DSS tenants.
However, they are generally very experienced in this work, will usually insist on payments being made via a credit union and invariably require a home owning guarantor. If there are any such landlords reading this — please comment below and give us your experience. The main problem as you suggest is the lenders and insurers, though this is discrimination on their part based on an assumed greater risk.
Can you imagine if they decided that black people were a greater risk, or men as opposed to women? It would not be allowed. Landlords are not always to blame but in an over saturated market like London, letting agents do not need to worry landlords with DSS tenants as they can cherry pick those with the most money and on paper the most secure.
The real issue is the further commoditisation of housing. It is a market, open to manipulation and market forces. Homes are now more about saving for a pension than providing safe, secure accomodation for people. Unfortunately landlords just acting in their own best interest is incompatible with their tenants best interests. We should stop pretending that it will be and seek a better solution. I let to a working tenant who lost his job and became DSS.
Then he broke up with his wife and then stopped claiming Then before eviction he smashed all the windows and ripped up all the carpets. And lets scotch the myth that all benefit claimants are feckless work-shy soap-dodgers.
Despite sterling efforts by IDS the housing benefit bill has risen instead of going down, not because of more unemployed but more low paid workers. Cant get the link to work on this but the figures out last week on Tesco are that they employ , people who are officially low paid. Thats just one corporation. That is why many HB teams wont talk to the landlord. I think this is a big mistake. AS a TRO of 25 years standing I found most threatened illegal evictions are prompted by HB being stopped and compounded by HB not telling the landlord what is going on.
As a consequence I averted most of these threatened evictions simply by talking to HB internally and then telling the landlord what was going on.
Whats needed is more social housing. Insurance firms are allowed to often do discriminate against particular groups based on characteristics such as age and disability, as insuring some groups carries more risk than others e.
In the case of someone who claims any form of housing benefit because they are low paid or unemployed, unless they are in that situation because of severe disability, they do have some option to change this although granted not easily or straight away — i. The consumer is asking for cover based on their circumstances. Do you know how much child care costs? How about self-employed single mums that just cannot run a business whilst having a full time baby to look after?
Take the baby to potential clients meetings? Is it really that huge as to prompt landlords to avoid it. Same goes with mortgage lenders, is it really that big a risk?
Are all DSS tenants one single character? Surely risk is evaluated as a sum of many aspects. Could be an idea to factor in if the DSS has any qualifications, or a criminal record. Rather than blanket not cover them in the insurance. Tenants with medical conditions, a history of epilepsy etc.? Inevitably, just like companies and governments, charities wax and wane. And governments are always running to catch up with events which they make worse perhaps as often as they make good. So could it be time for concerned individuals to get together and re-boot the charitable sector?
There are plenty of concerned landlords, and they have plenty of practical experoience of housing provision. Surely they can they work together for the common good? That would be nice and maybe some landlords will do that.
I know that many landlords would be happy to let to DSS tenants if only there were not so many issues. However my point in the post is that they should not be expected or required to act in a way which is or which they perceive to be to their financial disadvantage. There is a big difference between taking on a DSS tenant voluntarily and being forced to do so against your will.
The cost runs into thousands and most of it is not recoverable and often once you give notice the rent if it is being paid magically stops being paid to you. We never gave notice without good reason arrears generally anyway. Really glad some debate has been sparked and thanks for some helpful comments! But public relations is an important part of business, and increasingly agents in Hackney want to cultivate a positive image with local people. Im a landlord of thirty years i used to take dss but not any more iv just had a bill for 5 thousand pounds for a tenant that claimed housing benefit to which he was not entilted and as im the one that recieved the rent iv got to pay it back thoughi was not party to the fraud.
We have had a few tenants who overclaimed for long periods of time and their benefit entitlements were cancelled, however we, as the landlord, despite receiving direct payments were not charged.
It seems as though this may not be correct, or is this discretionary? The official line on housing benefit now — and for some years — is that whether the rent is paid directly to the tenant or to you — is immaterial.
If they deem the tenant was not entitled to have that rent paid, then they say the receiver of that rent — whether tenant or landlord — has to pay it back even if it relates to a previous tenancy and a previous landlord! Another important dis-incentive for landlords to accept DSS tenants is that if the tenants dont stay put — after being given notice — untill the Court bailiff has come to evict them which can take many months without rent — then the council have no duty of care to house them Once the eviction takes place, the council has to house them, even if its in hotel or hostel bed and breakfast, for however long it takes for a suitable property to become available.
Interestingly, Ireland has just made this discrimination illegal.. We mjust change our own equality laws of course and make it illegal here aswell.
But discrimination is a subtle thing and very hard to prove of course. It wd be interesting to know what tactics DIGS are using and advocating. Their Facebook event it was on 27 Feb talks of having some success already…. Direct Action works! Did the letting agency just cave in after one demo? Are they even telling the truth?! DIGS cd certainly do the same.
Housing benefit and Local Housing Allowance effectively replaced rent controls — in theory, making prices drop; but that never happened of course. Govt policy has typically been empowering landlords and dis-empowering tenants. Councils should be FORCED to accept that when a S 21 or S 8 has expired that tenant is homeless Ist should be noted that NO BTL mortgage lender will allow a tenancy of longer than 1 year This is because a lender want to know that it can eventually repossess a property even if rent is being paid.
So from a purely business perspective you can understand why the little LL wishes to avoid sometimes problematic DSS tenants!!! So there will be even fewer rental properties available for anyone least of all DSS tenants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Interesting post. Either way dramatic urban demographic changes, and the broadening out of the rental population, are bound -in the near future- to politicise PRS further and likely bring in a whole series of regulations and market restrictions.
It seems to me that there are two elements to this argument: a logistical one and a moral one. These clearly are issues in some instances, but the very fact that some landlords do accept DSS — from smallscale individuals up to the biggest housing associations — shows that they are by no means insurmountable. These also send information to linked Social Media channels.
Skip to main content England Scotland. Housing advice Housing advice. How to challenge DSS discrimination.
No DSS policies are unlawful discrimination The courts have ruled that 'no DSS' policies are unlawful because they indirectly discriminate against women and disabled people. If you need to talk to someone, we'll do our best to help Get help. Print this article Email. Instead, the tenant receives the rent in cash, and many are tempted to spend the money on other bills. Apply for direct rent payments online. Guild subscribers can get preferential rates for landlords buildings insurance especially designed for landlords.
Read more Tenant Referencing Service. Login Join Access Problems Status. So how should landlords market their homes to avoid breaking the law? He added: "Everyone should have the same opportunity when looking for a home and discriminating against someone simply because they receive benefits has no place in a modern hosing market. Landlords who say 'no DSS' flout the law. Legal victories over 'No DSS' letting agents. Zoopla bans housing benefit discrimination. Image source, Getty Images.
It was Rosie's case in that established the principle of indirect discrimination. Related Topics.
0コメント