Tenant did not disclose they were on benefits until we had started checks although it was specified on the advertising that we were not accepting DSS. We’ve now incurred a fee for referencing and a guarantor. I’m guessing we claim costs back on tax but not Open Rent?
You’re no longer allowed to say no dss in the advert and the tenant is not obliged to volunteer the information. You need to use an application form before you reference which asks a range of questions about their source of income. If they lie, you may then be entitled to keep any holding deposit youve taken.
1 Like
Did you not request bank statements prior to referencing so that you could verify sources and amount of income?
Being on benefits would not in any way disqualify an applicant for one of our properties. But telling me they weren’t in receipt of benefits prior to me finding out they were would disqualify them instantly.
I think you could retain the holding deposit based upon them lying, but publishing no DSS in your advert would make it easy for them to cry discrimination, based on the fact you rejected them as soon as you knew they were.
From a tenants point of view if the tenant expresses an interest in a property even though the advert says that the lha rate exceeds the rent of the property, but the tenant state that they can make up the shortfall then the landlord should consider their application.
If the landlord has a clause on their insurance that dss tenants would not be considered then thats fine.
However if the shortfall is say 10.00 per week and the landlord replys bacj sayingsays no dss then that is discrimination and there are various recent court cases that the applying benefit tenant could rely on.
The landlord would have a lot of difficulty defending his position
Why do Openrent still have the option ‘no dss’ if its illegal to say that ?
It’s not illegal discrimination because being on benefits is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. That’s why OR can have that check box.
Any LL can refuse any applicant without giving any reason whatsoever, and I’d be very interested in the references to the specific court cases you’ve mentioned Tim.
There are now established cases that its indirect discrimination under equalities legislation as women and other protected groups are more likely to be in receipt of benefits.
1 Like
Got any links David? As I say, I’d be interested in them.
Considering a LL who doesn’t take a holding deposit doesn’t have to give any reasons for not pursuing an application, I can’t see how someone would have any evidence of discrimination unless the LL was naive enough to needlessly put their thoughts into writing.
Copy the link and enter it manually. If I put the whole hotlink the post will go into moderation.
I did. Same result.
For some reason, it needs to have england [dot] at the start of the URL. Then it works fine.
Thanks for sharing. Had a read and noted that it was a verdict against “company policy” of a letting agent so not an individual landlord. Any more recent cases or ones involving individual LLs that have been based on this precedent?
Cases have been through the courts and have been recognised through the courts as discrimination to mainly woman as they are more likely to be on benefits.
Try just the last part in google
no_dss_landmark_court_ruling_confirms_housing_benefit_discrimination_unlawful