“Lowest Risk” That’s rather ambiguous and dependent on how it’s interpreted I can see a DSS applicant playing the “discrimination card” however, surely the same could be said from the “working applicant” that the Landlord would be discriminating against him/her by selecting the DSS applicant.
The bottom line has to be that the Landlord has the final choice of who he offers the tenancy to. But! Insurance companies also have to relax their policy of only accepting “working professionals” otherwise very few Landlords would even consider providing a tenancy to a DSS applicant when he’s unable to secure insurance cover for his property.
2 Likes
Well I did say lowest “financial” risk and I think you would probably need a valid risk assessment process to determine that, which doesn’t have to be complicated, but probably ought to be documented to cover yourself
Could we here revisit David122’s earlier post on this thread (#19, Nov 9 2020) regarding the persistence of OpenRent’s toggled option regarding ‘DSS’ - Sam, or s/o at mission control - essentially: could we please remove it from the web-page template ?
2 Likes
I have had reason to regret DHSS renters. Once bitten twice shy as its a costly lesson to learn. I hope you never experience it
I do not stop DHSS applicants from applying but I warn them in advance that if they fail the referencing they will not be considered. I also send them the reasons they can fail and ask if they think they will be ok. We are not people with loads of money to waste on others its all we can do to look after our own. Yes they can lose their job but housing benefit will be available to them. I am happy to accept that until they return to full time employment. What I wont accept is someone expecting me to carry them. Also rent guarantee is a must which is why they MUST pass the referencing.
1 Like
My thoughts exactly. Very strange.
Hi Nicholas, of course, happy to explain further.
(And a disclaimer that I haven’t listened to the podcast being discussed in the thread.)
There us a specific campaign to help tenants who claim benefits have a better time of living in the private rented sector. We fully support that campaign and have done a lot of work on it over the last few years.
There is a separate campaign which asks OpenRent to remove the ‘Benefit Income Accepted’ search category from the site. We have considered and investigated this request, but we we don’t agree that doing that is a good idea at the moment. Why? There are several reasons but here are perhaps the two most important:
- we surveyed 400 benefit claimants who were using OpenRent to find a home and 90% of them said they would prefer to keep adverts transparent, so that they don’t waste time applying to ones where landlords will just reject them because they rely on benefits to pay the rent. Here’s the survey.
- landlords are still being barred from letting to tenants who claim benefits by their mortgage and insurance terms. Although the campaign for us to change our site claims that it has removed almost every ‘no dss’ clause on the market, this is simply not the case. Here is one I found last weekend on Churchill - one of the UK’s best-known insurance companies. Here is the page. There are others, too. Even if a landlord wanted to challenge Churchill’s policy here, it’s unclear where they would begin and unfair to expect landlords to take on huge companies with no desire to change just so they can get the insurance they need to let their properties.
I hope this helps explain our reasoning. There’s lots more info on the ‘OpenRent News’ category of our landlord hub.
Sam
1 Like
Sam, thanks for the swift response. It’s worth spending an hour listening to Tessa Buchanan’s presentation of the proceedings in the Tyler v Carr case - it deals definitively aswell with the issue of posting the term ‘no DSS’ itself.
I’m not familiar with the background detail of the two campaigns mentioned, but it seems evident that a binary toggle switch ‘DSS un/acceptable’ cannot cover the signification required. Featuring ‘DSS not acceptable’ is held to be discriminatory and thus unlawful (logically, then, the toggle is spurious).
Without re-hashing the substance of posts here above, it’s misleading thereafter to flag the only other option, ‘DSS Accepted’ as carrying the favour intended, where realistically it simply translates as ‘DSS not refused per se’, as neither are salaried remuneration/self-employed earnings/etc… There remains substantial disaccord market-wide over the adequacy of DWP-sourced security, which is not going to go away simply by throttling the ad copy. It won’t help tenants much either, since the ‘Accepted’ check-box option at OpenRent is not discretionary and thereby rendered ambiguous as to its significance. Perhaps electing to tick it or omit it is the way to go - then a search will find it if it’s there and skip on over if it ain’t.
Sam
From my point of view when that when I clicked I will allow DSS thinking as so many people are on furloughed so I might consider but with my last advert I had all enquires with people just ask to view the flat because allowed DSS. Then I had mainly enquires and said they wanted to view the property because I allow DSS. The people enquired were even did not look at the description of the property as it was suitable or not for them.
1)One was a single mother with 2 teenagers girls for this one bedroom flat and
2) other was a single mother with a little baby
3) other said he wanted to move because this flat is in private development and I take dss and would not give any other replies
4) then I had a few saying because they were now 35 years old old so they can get 1bedroom allowances but not thinking as the rent is more than 1bedroom allowances and would not answer all my questions as they would difficult to pay.
So then I just removed DSS accepted as I just got fed up with all those enquires and not really genuine enquires.
If there was a really honest enquiry I would have considered.
5 Likes
It sounds like you opened a tin of worms with the varied applications you received from DSS applicants.
It all appears like a lot of hassle to me and I for one have enough problems keeping some working tenants in check let alone tenants who have excessive time on their hands.
I see this government intervention as an interference in a Landlord’s investment and that should not include the power to try and “shoehorne” people into private rental property. It should be the Landlords choice as to who he entrusts his investment to.
Landlords constantly have to jump through hoops to comply with legislation with no help or support from Westminster or local authorities it’s about time the powers that be minded their own business or offered DSS applicants long term accommodation in “their” home.
But no matter what the wording it still doesn’t overcome the reluctance of insurance to cover a property with DSS occupancy.
So where applicants are screaming social discrimination it’s not necessarily the Landlord who’s causing it.’
4 Likes
I am disabled and unfortunately will never get better and as far as I believe it also illegal for insurance companies to include disabled claimants as they have no choice! I was on £30k a year (which in the north is well above average) but had to leave due to illness. I know ask landlords who their insurance provider is as I know know that 90% of buy to let mortgage lenders do not have the policy of disallowing their customers to let to benefit claimants. This will allow me to k ow who I would Sue if I was discriminated against. I am awaiting a reply from a landlord who rejected my application on here when I told him I was on disability benefits and he asked no further questions and just rejected so I’m taking that further too!
I invite all potential landlords to visit my current home unannounced to see how I live and look after a property! I also tell them I will wavier the 24 notice for an inspection that’s included in most tenancy agreements, I also show them my bank account which shows my rent going out repeatedly and with no delays even if my due date is a weekend I ensure it is paid the last working day prior and if the landlord wishes to purchase guaranteed rent insurance policy I’d be happy to pay at least 75%. It’s frustrating because being disabled I’m excluded out of a majority of the housing stock due to needing ground floor a bungalow.
Finally may I add that some comments on here regarding UC/not guaranteeing the rent can I ask those people which employers have guaranteed the rent for their employees? I worked for a huge international energy company and it’s not something they would provide as part of their employment benefits. My sister had 3 properties she rented out and 2 were near a hospital and were both rented to Doctors and the state they left the property in was absolutely appalling and due to the dirt had to have specialist cleaning and one had so much waste in the garden had to hire skips! Her 3rd property was and still is rented to a couple who claim benefits (10 yrs now) and never missed a payment and the garden is immaculate as is the inside. I’d urge landlords to ask to view someone’s current home regardless of how they pay rent because being employed for any amount of earnings protects a landlord! If someone doesn’t want to pay rent they won’t regardless of income! I’ve written to my local MP also requesting that they make it illegal and fraud if someone on UC or benefits because the housing element is outlined on a UC statement almost ring fencing it and anyone not paying it to the landlord will mean they are defrauding the system! If this can be done the although it’s not a guarantee it would stop those claimants using it to enrich themselves which is what they are doing!
90% of buy to let mortgage providers do not have this clause here in the UK and therefore I bet my landlords now too by asking who their insurance provider is as this will allow me to know (should I wish to) who I’d need to sue for discrimination as I’m disabled so unfortunately I don’t have the choice to go to work. Below is details on statement from NLA below shows my statement regarding insurers.
It is difficult to understand the scale of the problem within the mortgage industry. According to research published by the Residential Landlords Association in May 2017, two-thirds of the largest lenders, representing approximately 90% of the buy-to-let market, bar landlords from letting to tenants who claim housing benefit.17 However, recent discussions with the representatives from the mortgage industry have suggested the majority of the buy-to-let market do now allow landlords to let to tenants in receipt of benefits – with some suggesting that up to 85% of the market, by ma
Just want to clarify that my statement that I mentioned about me writing to my MP. I’ve written to my MP to request it be made unlawful for any tenant getting assistance with housing for it to be used for anything other than rent because on a UC claimants statement they are paid an actual amount specifically to pay their landlord which is almost as good as it being ring fenced so if a UC/HB claimant does not forward that money to a landlord then it should be classed as fraudulent as they are being enriched by someone else’s money!
2 Likes
that is totally the problem the rent is paid to the tenant not the Landlord . That TOTALLY puts me off
2 Likes
Julie, assuming your MP thought it was a great idea to make it unlawful for the money allocated by the state to pay rent not to be handed to the Landlord. But in reality would the tenant then hand it over?
it would take months to bring an action against a tenant who may choose to flaunt that rule. In the meantime the person may have chosen to spend the rent on whatever and is now living for free in a private let accommodation.
For the Landlord to evict the tenant and recover his property for non payment can take several months via S21 or alternatively a S8 could be issued which can be contested by the tenant.
It’s up to the Landlord who he wishes to enter into a Tenancy Agreement with after all’s said and done he does own the property!
At the end of the day it’s his property and his choice who he invites to be his tenant from a list of potential applicants. Discrimination doesn’t come into it
2 Likes
Julie - as far as I can see from most of the comments hereabouts, reluctance to engage with universal credit claimants is much less to do with generalised pre-judgments concerning how well the property will be maintained than how reliable DWP subventions are (so not to be taken personally!). Benefits are not equivalent to a legal guarantee and relatively complicated in their assessment and administration. That this reduces the range of properties for which your applications have been successful, your frustration is understood - but I would bet few such disappointments are based on an anticipation of diminished dusting & hoovering.
One motive, I suspect, why government will not guarantee the benefit underwriting a tenancy agreement is that it will prevent subsequent withdrawal for discretionary reasons, either to do with the conditionality on which universal credit would have been awarded originally or simply due to a change in government policy. This presents a different credit risk profile for benefits compared to waged or salaried employment, which usually derives from transferable skills and which remuneration cannot be tampered with quite so capriciously. I would guess that a large number of private sector landlords are simply not able to finance the provision of social services to this potential extent.
1 Like
I get that it would be a process but that’s like saying no point having a law because it takes too long! If something is not right it’s better to have some recourse than nothing at all and if there is a chance of prosecution then it will reduce the amount of people who do spend ring fenced money from UC. I also accept that you have the right to choose but your statement still shows signs of discrimination as you are talking about not getting rent from people on UC! Yet a tenant who is working does not automatically guarantee they will pay rent either! And your only recourse there is as you know a section 8 of 14 days notice yet to enforce you need to go to court so a working tenant is just as risky really because no employer will guarantee rent and your only recourse is court eviction! While, if a tenant on UC is 2 months in arrears you can yourself request for direct payments so you do already have a recourse for it and I can tell you that changes made recently by UC means that the Landlord is sent the rent payment the same day the UC applicant is paid for example if they get paid the 24th of every month then the rent will also be paid to you on the 24th you are no longer waiting for batch payment runs. So in my opinion a UC applicant is the same risk as a working person! (Yes I accept that someone’s money can be stopped but it has to be investigated and most cases I’ve seen are resolved within a few days and I know that the DWP has a deadline too as by law they can not leave anyone with no income!) but you have an option to get rent the money to yourself from UC without having to pay court cost! What options do you have if an employed person decided to not pay? The answer is non only court eviction.
But no employee can guarantee you their rent either! And in my reply to Geoff I state that recent changes within UC means that payments are sent directly to the landlord if 2 months in arrears and is paid on a monthly basis on the date it should be paid by the client so the administration of direct payments has changed and landlords do not have to wait for batch payments runs (usually every 6 wks) anymore so are in the same position as they were when renting to the client in the first place and can also apply for arrears to be deducted from from their UC included in your rent payment! You don’t have this avenue available to you with someone who is employed as being employed doesn’t mean they can guarantee the rent at all especially in today’s climate! But one other issue I’d like to point out is that so many working people can get access to extra money from the government to gain help with rent and most average earners get help with rent so the chances now of finding tenants who are not in receipt of any government assistance is low and one of the reasons why so many mortgage providers have since removed the clause in insurance in letting to UC claimants (check statement from Nationwide below). I do still stand by the fact that any tenant is a risk but you do have an early option of recourse with UC claimants that is free but if an employed person is behind in rent the court is your only recourse which is costly!
1 Like
Sorry forgot to add the statement I mentioned in my reply. I can also provide statements from other buy to let mortgage providers if you require.
restricting letting to tenants on benefits does not fit with Nationwide’s ethos as a building society, because of the unfair disadvantage it implies. Our founding principles included helping people escape poor quality housing and ensuring everyone can access a safe and secure home remains at the heart of our business today.”
Paul Wootton, Director of Specialist Lending, Nationwide Building Society
Well said Nicholas. Unbelievable, it’s been ruled as discrimination and here we have a forum nearly full of judgemental people doing just that. I’m on severe disability benefits meaning my income is stable long term, no risk of redundancy.
2 Likes
As Nicholas says, one day you may lose everything as I had happen to me and end up on benefits. In that event some of you should read back through your prejudice comments and feel ashamed of yourselves.
1 Like