Landlords discriminating against DSS tenants

Landlords discriminating against DSS tenants

Author
Discussion

CoolHands

Original Poster:

18,498 posts

194 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
oh dear, looks like that a certain type of sentence will have to be left out of the advert. I thought this was why housing associations exist? As what private landlord is going to rent to dss and end up getting shafted? (yes I know not all dss are bad, don't use the Equalities Act against me rolleyes). If that woman is the best example they could find (evicted - hmm wonder why? + 6 kids) then they're going to struggle to garner sympathy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46137624

Lemming Train

5,567 posts

71 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
There was a thread on this very topic not that long ago - within the past few months. I think the summary of it was "tough st - get a job" by the resident LLs who'd mostly had experience of renting to DSS and the stereotype that they're all more trouble than they're worth and spend all their benefit on booze and fags instead of the rent was largely true.

LLs are operating a business and just like any other business they can pick and choose who they wish to do business with. No LL in their right mind will entertain DSS clientele when there is a queue of private renters with full-time jobs, steady regular income and long list of references all to hand.

coetzeeh

2,641 posts

235 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
Perhaps my experience was an exception - had the same DSS tenant for 12 years. Never missed one payment never had a single issue.

NickCQ

5,392 posts

95 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
Wasn't there a rule change a couple of years back about whether HB was paid to the tenant or directly to the LL?

200Plus Club

10,678 posts

277 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
We've had two tenants who ended up on benefits. One went the wrong way and we had to start proceedings for arrears and eviction. She left as papers were served owing a grand or more. The second had a back injury and didn't exactly rush back to work after being finished ( less than 12 month contract at work so they finished him). Eventually we had to apply to have his rent paid direct as he wasn't paying us properly. He then surprisingly got a good job after a year and started to pay on time etc and is still there now, still working.

The local council like to underpay the full rent when it happens and argue the toss that the tenant makes up the shortfall but it's just a pain and I wouldn't knowingly take on "dhss" as it used to be termed again.

Simpo Two

85,151 posts

264 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
NickCQ said:
Wasn't there a rule change a couple of years back about whether HB was paid to the tenant or directly to the LL?
HB was paid to the LL. Then some fools in government took pity on the poor tenants and punished the evil LLs by paying HB directly to the tenant. They didn't think that the tenant might blow it on holidays, TVs and smartphones instead of the rent (I mean, all LL's are millionaires, they won't miss it) such that they get evicted...

Once a tenant is in arrears you can get HB paid directly, but I think that depends on the council involved.

My experience as LL: 1 HB tenant, debt and damages £4K. No point going to small claims as they have no money. Won't get caught again.

JaredVannett

1,561 posts

142 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
coetzeeh said:
Perhaps my experience was an exception - had the same DSS tenant for 12 years. Never missed one payment never had a single issue.
That's fantastic, how about getting in touch with the lovely Michelle and putting her in one of your homes?

Best of luck.

Lemming Train

5,567 posts

71 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
hehe

98elise

26,381 posts

160 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
coetzeeh said:
Perhaps my experience was an exception - had the same DSS tenant for 12 years. Never missed one payment never had a single issue.
I have had three DSS tenants and two have completely trashed my properties. The last one cost me 8k to put right. I now don't rent to people on benefits.

There is a reason insurance companies ask about tenants on benefits.

If the government think it's just unfair an stereotype then perhaps they should put up money to pay for any damages. If they are right then it's not going to cost a penny. If not then let business decide who they rent a 200k asset to.

markiii

3,565 posts

193 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
I own!y consider those who pass a credit check with a demonstrable income capable of covering the rent and bills.mthat rather ruled out the benefit set by default

And if that's their best poster girl in favour of letting to dss it's rather an own goal

dazwalsh

6,095 posts

140 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
I can tell you two reasons why there is an ever increasing amount of “no dss” on adverts.

1. The dss lot by and large cannot front the initial rent and deposit and admin fee, cant provide a guarantor and thats before we get to the scumbag types who will try bullst their way in, awful credit scores, stunts like putting family members down as previous landlords in order to not reveal they were actually evicted for rent arrears or racked up debts and legged it.

2. The councils are absolute bds to work with when you house tenants on DSS. Utterly useless and thats when you can actually get through to them at all.

Ive tried and tried with dss tenants and there are good ones dont get me wrong (still have 4 long term dss tenants) but its been a blanket no dss from about 2015 after the last horrific tenant left 8 puppies to die in the kitchen covered in their own st scratching at the kitchen cupbords for food. The amount of post suggested they had just used my house to rack up thousands in debt and did a runner.




Simpo Two

85,151 posts

264 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
'"This research shows that blatant discrimination against people on housing benefit is widespread," said Kate Henderson, chief executive of the NHF.'

Yes. And how many properties does Ms Henderson let to such people? (in order that she may temper idealism with reality)

EarlOfHazard

3,601 posts

157 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
dazwalsh said:
I can tell you two reasons why there is an ever increasing amount of “no dss” on adverts.

1. The dss lot by and large cannot front the initial rent and deposit and admin fee, cant provide a guarantor and thats before we get to the scumbag types who will try bullst their way in, awful credit scores, stunts like putting family members down as previous landlords in order to not reveal they were actually evicted for rent arrears or racked up debts and legged it.

2. The councils are absolute bds to work with when you house tenants on DSS. Utterly useless and thats when you can actually get through to them at all.

Ive tried and tried with dss tenants and there are good ones dont get me wrong (still have 4 long term dss tenants) but its been a blanket no dss from about 2015 after the last horrific tenant left 8 puppies to die in the kitchen covered in their own st scratching at the kitchen cupbords for food. The amount of post suggested they had just used my house to rack up thousands in debt and did a runner.
Oh that's bloody awful about the puppies. frown

coetzeeh

2,641 posts

235 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
JaredVannett said:
coetzeeh said:
Perhaps my experience was an exception - had the same DSS tenant for 12 years. Never missed one payment never had a single issue.
That's fantastic, how about getting in touch with the lovely Michelle and putting her in one of your homes?

Best of luck.
Aplogies, I am unable to help. I exited the BTL market in 2016 and invested in equities instead.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
Many buildings and contents policies for let properties specifically exclude renting to DSS customers. So the LL doesn't have a choice.

markcoznottz

7,155 posts

223 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
'"This research shows that blatant discrimination against people on housing benefit is widespread," said Kate Henderson, chief executive of the NHF.'

Yes. And how many properties does Ms Henderson let to such people? (in order that she may temper idealism with reality)
Can't find that much on her, suspected common purpose drone, risen very fast through the ranks, fair to say limited understanding of the issues you raise.

CoolHands

Original Poster:

18,498 posts

194 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
suspected common purpose drone,
lol
interview said:
Her previous background was in marketing for the renewable energy sector
edit; actually I've just realised her background is basically (self) marketing, and what's she immediately done in her new role is throw this load of bullst out to the press to market herself and get her name even further out there with all the right people. Very clever. Will no doubt get an OBE for services to bullst in a couple of years; get to sit on various quangos and hobnob with politicians etc

Edited by CoolHands on Friday 9th November 11:38

superlightr

12,842 posts

262 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
Many of the above comments are true as to the issues. From a diplomatic and perhaps changing legal point of view it may be seen as discriminating against a section of society when some will be bad apples and some wont.

Owning a letting agency we let/manage close to 300 properties each year. The issues are:

1) When a HB tenant is given notice to leave s21 the council will tell the tenant to remain in the property until a court order otherwise they will view them as intentionally homeless and the council wont rehouse and will stop their payments. This forces landlords to more delays and expense. The govt have written to the council to say that they should not do this but they ignore this.

2) Housing benefit/UC is paid 4 weeks and 5 days in arrears. Rent is due in advance. HB tenants often will get into arrears and cannot get out of that cycle.

3) If there is a query or the HB tenant circumstances change the council will stop or delay payment of HB/UC thus creating arrears for the landlord.

4) After a tenant is 8 weeks in arrears the landlord can legally require the council to pay the landlord direct. - The issues is that that council can claw this back upto 6 years later if the tenant was not entailed to all of the HB amount or misrepresented something to the council.

5) HB tenants often cannot afford the deposit. The council may offer a deposit guarantee which gives little incentive for the tenant to look after the property

So as a business we don't wish to discriminate against a 'whole' section of society but we are employed to find the best and most secure tenants for a property and our landlords. We want to protect our landlords from risk of non payment and bad tenants.

So we don't say no HB/DSS but we do ensure that their salary does cover 2.5x the rent and they can pay the full deposit. - so they have to be in work, we don't take into account HB/UC payments. If they are in receipt of HB/UC etc that's fine provided they have stable work showing wages that will cover the rental.

If the council would re-house or help tenants move out at the end of a s21 notice then half the issues would go overnight but they don't. You can get scummy tenant in any walk of life but it tends to be if they don't have any skin in the game ie financial risk they wont be good tenants.

If they council paid in advance that would also help but again they wont which causes the tenants to go into arrears.

you then have the s21 issues and councils telling them to stay.


On other issues recently about prevention of eviction retaliation Act - a tactic of the HB tenant/council will be to claim dilapidations and try to get any s21 notice overturned often from false claims. The council then inspected and gave a long list of fault items in the property. They were actively trying the prevent the tenant from being legally evicted.

When we inspected the property with them at a later date it turns out none of the items listed by the council as failing were failed or required by law. The council hadn't checked the legal requirements and made no checks other then believe the tenants -ie boiler and heating not working/ noisy boiler, no extractor in bathroom, failed lighting in bathroom, etc telling us the s21 notice was not valid and that the landlord had to replace the boiler and do xyz.

It turns out the tenant had the boiler on timed for 30 mins 1x a day and all thermostats turned off. Council didn't check, So the boiler was working fine. The bathroom had a window and did not need an extractor, the council ignored the laws, the lighting was the required type and distance from the shower the council didn't measure it and guessed so again ignored the law and so on.

The council are the issues as well. We don't trust the council at all as they lie and misrepresent the truth/law.

So we are very careful to filter the tenants, ensure they can pay and fully understand the legal compliance side of lettings to help ensure the letting of properties are successful for our landlords.

The bashing of landlords and agents will hurt all tenants in the end and cost them more.



Edited by superlightr on Friday 9th November 11:41

Chuffedmonkey

907 posts

105 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
I was gobsmacked a few years ago when I found out rent does not get paid directly to the LL. Its unfair to tarnish all people on benefits the same but paying people on benefits the rent to then pass on to the LL is asking for trouble.

Saleen836

11,061 posts

208 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
Chuffedmonkey said:
I was gobsmacked a few years ago when I found out rent does not get paid directly to the LL. Its unfair to tarnish all people on benefits the same but paying people on benefits the rent to then pass on to the LL is asking for trouble.
Indeed it is, some on benefits with a child or 2 don't care if they go into arrears with rent after choosing to spend it on a big tv/clothes/holiday/etc as they know full well if evicted the council has a duty to rehouse them.