all you idiot landlords that do not rent to people just because they do not work , you all think you are better than the people who are claiming DSS . Its people like you lot that make people homeless and make people live on the streets so stop trying to make out it is right what you are doing because it is not , have a nice day people
we will have a nice day because we dont have you as a tenant. People like you make yourself homeless because of your attitude. That chip on your shoulder must be heavy. Have a nice day person
6 Likes
Colin is right, you have a massive chip on your shoulder, the world owes us all nothing and it’s time attitudes change. You epitomise the element of the tenant that causes so much trouble for genuine tenants.
Genuine tenants are chosen for their ability to pay (some with help), keep the property in good order and without nuisance. It’s as simple as that, if you don’t meet that profile , no one has the right to demand " give me free everything". A simple fact of life. So work or not working if your support or guarantor helps to pay the rent and you meet the profile there is no issue from landlords.
3 Likes
Well said Colin. Look, it’s quite simple. If you receive benefits, then you’re starting at a disadvantage to many landlords. Why? It’s because many of us don’t trust the people who pay your rent. Why don’t we? Because they’ve burned many of us before. If you get burned, do you put your hand back in the fire? Of course not. So what can you do about it? Well moaning about those of us who have the right to choose our clients isn’t going to help is it? So the ultimate fix is to repair the damage done by those that underwrite your rent. For those that don’t get what I’m saying, UC are the problem for many, so you need to do all possible to repair that. The more people that go to UC and say that they can’t get a property because many landlords don’t trust UC, the more chances there are of it getting fixed. Fix the problem not the symptom. See the logic there? If your arm hurts because it’s broken, pain killers won’t work. It needs medical intervention. Same logic applies here.
So what are you doing to fix it? Nothing as far as I can see. What am I doing? I’m suggesting that UC could sign as legal guarantor. It’s a fix that’s possible without that much change & would deliver a huge break for those on benefits. Why won’t they do this? I’ve yet to receive a credible answer. I have 2 suspicions. 1 is that it’s just too much to expect such an organisation to be bothered with making the change. The other is more sinister. Maybe they don’t trust the people that are claiming benefits. Now who’s discriminating?
I don’t know if theres a 3rd reason, I’ve yet to be shown one, but let’s get back to the simple fact. The thing that needs fixing is the reason why many landlords don’t trust UC but UC won’t do anything about it. Solve the problem at source & the healing starts. It’s really quite simple.
And before all the detractors jump on board, yes UC has taken ages to build. Yes theres a lot gone into it. Yes it costs money to fix, but surely it’s worth it. But let’s be realistic about this. Car manufacturers get it wrong, they do a recall & fix the issue. The new CV19 vaccination isn’t 100% effective, but you can be sure they will keep working on it to aim for 100%. So why do UC deliver a product that’s clearly imperfect then just expect their clients to put up with it as it is?
Its not the landlords that need fixing, it’s the benefits system. There you have it, problem & solution in 1 post. Jeez I wish someone with the drive to do something would read these posts.
This landlord bashing has to stop. Will someone just get a grip of the real problem & put in some effort to fix it? Or is that too much like hard work?
4 Likes
The rental insurance is an absolute farce. I bought this and when I thought I might need it they told me nothing can be done unless you evict them and of course in lockdown you can’t right now! (I didn’t really want to anyway) Or you can by giving 6 months notice then long court waits etc etc.
1 Like
I have never taken out rental insurance .Use your gut feeling . Do NOT be rushed, check, check ,and check
1 Like
They actually stopped offering it when Covid came in to play. Cheeky buggers
1 Like
I cannot understand why the system gives people money to pay the rent and then do nothing to them if they keep the money, is that not benefit fraud ?
4 Likes
I’m totally confused about the DSS thing. Open rent needs to clarify. I selected open to DSS on my recent advert and I’ve had people contact me without any income at all except for benefits. It’s a two bed luxury flat and it’s a single person. I got back to the person saying that there’s no way he would pass the credit checks. This is the problem. Anyone on benefits isn’t going to pass credit checks. I explained this and also explained it’s a Huge Flat and pricey for the area, he got back claiming prejudice etc etc. What are we landlords supposed to do? It’s a silly legislation. If I do not tick the open to DSS box, which wound save everyone a lot of wasted time and energy, am I discriminating? I would write the save thing to someone who was not on DSS but I knew would not pass credit checks. And anyway I already have people before his enquiry with a good income and who WOULD pass so there was no reason to carry on. But it wound save everyone time & energy to just tick No DSS. Please help Open Rent with this one.
May I ask, If it is illegal to say no DSS in the advert, why Open Rent has it as a tick box on their portal?
2 Likes
Openrent are pioneering the right to say no dss. If its legal or not is still up in the air. I applaud them for their stance on this. I think this may go to court but we have to say they are championing the cause potentially at their own expense. It’s a rarity that such a large company is prepared to put themselves in the breach for us. I’m truly grateful. I’m ticking the box & then stating my aim, as previously mentioned. I would recommend you do the same. I’ll give my statement again.
Benefits tenants are welcome to apply. You must have a letter from the benefits agency stating that they will pay the advertised price & that they will sign as legal guarantor on the AST.
This, I believe, should cover you legally. It will also weed out certain applicants as the benefits agency will not sign as such at the moment. The repeated use of this phrase will, in my mind, do 2 things. Solve a problem in the ad in the short term & show that we do not trust them in the longer term. Its not necessarily their clients we have a problem with, it is they themselves we do not trust.
4 Likes
I don’t think that demanding something that you know is not possible for the prospective tenant to fulfill would cover you legally.
the easiest thing to do is just to ask questions of ALL applcants and in your MIND choose who you want. The best for me wins
3 Likes
Hi David. The thing is, it’s not impossible. Its genuinely the stipulation I have to rent to someone that relies on a 3rd party to pay their rent. If someone’s dad paid their rent, I’d want him as legal guarantor. That’s not unreasonable is it? So wanting UC to guarantee the payments is perfectly fair. Until they see this as a regular request, there is unlikely to be a change in their attitude. I’d rent to a UC tenant if I had a legal guarantor that I had the confidence in to pay, or reasonably expect to win a court case against. Legally I’m not asking the impossible, but I am asking for something unusual that I believe should be the norm. I’d be happy to defend myself in a court against a system that says I can’t have my own stipulations. Any court would be crazy to try to suppress the freedom to choose if theres no discrimination. The press would go nuts about that kind of thing. The law says we need to not discriminate by advertising a blanket no dss policy. That’s all it says. My system doesn’t go against that. But what it does is to avoid applications from those I won’t be renting to. I’m just being fair & not building up peoples hopes that have no chance whilst protecting my own assets & avoiding wasting anyone’s time. It’s a way of either changing attitudes or if they won’t change, solving a problem now. I’d agree with your way, except I now get around 40 applications to view a property within 48 hours. There has to be some form.of control and filtering.
5 Likes
My understanding is that it is not legally possible for the DWP to stand as guarantor for individual tenants, nor is it public policy to do so. A landlord in the business of considering tenants on Universal Credit would be expected by a discrimination hearing to know that. Therefore I believe that you would not be able to rely on it as a defence to indirect discrimination. You should listen to the Tessa Shepperson webinar on the Tyler vs Carr case here: https://landlordlaw.co.uk/landlord-law-legal-cases/. Its quite an eye-opener.
1 Like
there you go… just dont take any on … no help from councils all too risky UNLESS you personally know the U C applicant
Well that’s another thing I’ve learned today. As Colin says, that’s another barrier up against UC tenants for the future. I’d think the system would be trying to find ways to help their clients. It seems not.
I still stick with my point. The system is the problem, not landlords. I wish they’d fix it rather than trying to fix us, then we’d all be happier.
There will be a day when landlords will have sold up their entire stock. The gov will then be faced with the dilemma of where to house people that don’t qualify for mortgages. That’s going to be an interesting thing to deal with. But it’s so far away that they don’t care now. Silly really.
3 Likes
So I’ve done a bit more research on this subject. What I’m amazed at is that the DWP aren’t legally allowed to be a guarantor, according to David, who seems to be clued up legally. But, there are companies out there that offer services as guarantor for profit! I can’t believe the gov allow this way of tempting UC claimants into unmanageable debt. Needless to say I won’t be working with any prospective tenants that employ such companies.
So I’ve revised my approach. My ads will now state that most applicants will require a guarantor. I’ll be using the openrent filtering questions option. I will also no longer be providing a reason for rejecting an applicant. It’s a real shame that we’re forced to take this approach, but our hand is forced for fear of repercussions. Now none of my applicants will be able to asses & try to fix whatever issue is preventing them from getting a rental property.
It’s very sad that we’re forced into this predicament. If it were me in their position, I’d appreciate being told what the issue is. If a person doesn’t know what the obstacles are, how can they work to remove them?
Very sad. Very silly & very short sighted of the government run agencies.
I really can see a problem coming for the DWP now. It might only be patchy, but theres going to be an increasing number of good UC applicants that just won’t be able to live anywhere close to their natural home area or in a suitable property. Why? Because the law says that the DWP can’t be guarantor, landlords therefore often won’t trust the DWP & we will have no need to take on riskier tenancies.
The solution? Change the law. Change the mindset. Sort this out so everyone is protected & stop this ridiculous approach to slowly pushing landlords into solving a problem that exists because the law is inappropriate to the current situation.
What an utter mess successive governments have made & continue to make of the housing market. And just wait until they give us income tax aligned capital gains tax. That’s going to be a fun problem to solve if they want to destroy the PRS.
2 Likes
I’ve watched the presentation of the Tyler v Carr case at Tessa Shepperson’s LandlordLaw and it is very informative - thanks for the link David122.
It strikes me that, as the barrister Tessa Buchanan indicates, the law is likely evolving in the direction of ruling against indirect discrimination vis-a-vis ‘No-DSS’, although I’d guess there will be many pragmatic refinements as to the contours of what constitutes discrimination in the context of private lettings. The restaurant height-bar simile here is probably not the best illustration of indirect discrimination, since we’d want to be considering ability to pay rather than discretionary consumption on the premises … but the scope of the statutory legislation is understood.
With pretty much all business undertakings, there are ubiquitous issues of credit risk, counterparty risk, and operating risks deriving from the (changeability of) regulation of the specific business sector. What the legislation is seeking to achieve is prevention of disqualification of counterparties as a class on the generalised grounds of poor credit risk. I’m not of the view that the intention is to interfere with evaluation of credit risk, although this is possibly what could happen if policy is left to be defined by successive case law rulings. However, what the courts cannot argue imv is that the DWP’s benefits necessarily constitute adequate security, either in terms of undertaking or amount.
There is also the question, as LandlordPhil is saying, of to what degree should private landlords, with their diverse capacities to supply residential accommodation, be held responsible for rectifying structural defects in socialised housing policy. In my view, this is a choice example of market failure, brought about by government’s dereliction of duty properly to underwrite social services. If the DWP wishes effectively to address the impact of credit risk on private rental supply (sensible, if it’s in the business of subsidising rental payments anyway), it should arrange matters to act as guarantor - there is no such thing in law as a partial guarantor.
2 Likes
My understanding of the outcome of this and the earlier court cases relating to No DSS is that what is being challenged is both having a blanket policy of not accepting tenants on benefits and an unwillingness to consider them alongside other prospective tenants if they do apply. I see nothing in either of the judgements that prevents a landlord from making a business decision that after consideration of the specific circumstances of the applicant and of the current financial status of their rental business, that accepting this tenant would present too great a business risk at the present time. Likewise, I see nothing in the judgement that prevents landlords who are considering a number of applicants from selecting the one that they assess to be the lowest financial risk.
2 Likes