Potential discrimination by asking whether the rent is paid by DSS or not

Tenant Discussion
21

Easy enough, just compile a poll, seems like that’s all that’s needed to qualify as “evidence”. The way in which shelter compiles data is actually laughable.

Do you think that a landlord should be able to choose to not rent their property to a tenant who has been no benefits for the past 10 years, yet is perfectly capable of working? (And is not disabled) Is this tenant desirable or is someone working likely to be a far less risky bet? Does someone choosing not to work actually deserve it even? The point is there’s always an order of preference.

Many landlords will rent to those who work and on benefits, but in current market where 50+ applicants is typical working no benefits tenants will always be first choice due to numerous risk related reasons attached to benefits. IE LL unable to get rent guarantee insurance for starters (and a hundred more reasons).

6 Likes
22

Good luck battling it in court.

1 Like
23

How on earth is the below even a vaguely relevant reply to the query? How does this relate to those landlords who have suffered by way of benefit tenants??! Are the 8% making a loss DSS landlords perhaps?! :slight_smile:

  1. One reason sometimes put forward is the fear of financial loss due to delayed or unpaid rent. However, an unpublished survey of 1009 private landlords undertaken by Shelter and You Gov from December 2019 to January 2020 [LR14-350] showed that:

    1. The majority of landlords surveyed are doing well financially. Eight in ten (81%) are in pre-tax profit when rent is compared to total costs and nearly half of these (39% of all landlords surveyed) say they are making ‘a lot more’. Only 8% reported making a monthly loss.
2 Likes
24

Can you explain why do you consider the way Shelter complies the data to be laughable?

As I mentioned earlier, this is a civil court, so you only need to convince the judge that your defence/claim is more believable than the other side.

Just because you have evidence, doesn’t mean you automatically win. It just means the judge leans more to your version compared to the other side. If the other side has the evidence that opposes yours but theirs has more “weight”, the judge will lean to them more than yours.

If you think your poll would stand when compared to Shelter’s survey then feel free to present it. There will be a cross examination as to how you gathered this evidence and all the sorts about the poll you’ve collected.

Talking about those on benefits but refusing to work. I do have a few questions to ask:

  1. How do you know this information before offering the tenancy agreement? Not many landlords privy further into personal lives of the prospective applicants.

  2. Some of my work involves benefits calculations - I know these people would be expected to look for work while having very little left over each month, it’s really a horrible living to be honest as they often have to rely on food banks. Any affordability check (or screening question asking for total household income) would fail these people. My question is, how do you know they’re not disabled? Or looking after someone?

Just remember I never said landlords should accept all applicants on benefits.

Your final paragraph goes to explain numerous risks & liabilities associated letting out to those on benefits which leads me to think you haven’t actually read the judgment properly. The judgment clearly explains that it is certainly possible to obtain mortgage, insurance, etc for those on benefits and for majority of the cases, the extra cost to pay will be little to none.

You realise that Equality Act 2010 actually does not place a blanket ban on this type of discrimination? It only bans discrimination if there is no justifiable reason. Your waffle about associated risks and extra costs, are just that, a waffle. You can win the court case easily if you quantify that waffle with supporting documentation.

The point is to avoid prejudice based on preconceived notions. If you do your research properly, it’s no longer a preconceived notion, but a fact.

25

LL pay considerably more for rent guarantee insurance for benefits claimants. You clearly dont have first hand experience in this.

Looking at my post shown later on in thread is just one example of how Shelter attempts to skew its limited data. Their polls are so often biased and totally inept.

Long term landlords are those best qualified, those that have seen it all, and understand how it actually works.

You seem to think the world exists within a court room.

5 Likes
26

So you arrive at your “facts” by blindly following the results of extremely limited, totally biased surveys conducted on tiny cohorts, carried out by an organisation that only represents tenants?

3 Likes
27

Jma, I’ve got to say, as a landlord with several properties, reading your posts and arguments, I would run in the opposite direction if you applied to be a tenant in one of my properties.

You write as if you are owed something. A sense of entitlement comes across too strongly in your posts. Have you actually done any research to analyse how many LL are put into difficulties by tenants on DSS. Obviously, there are exceptions, but we have to be wary and be able to make our own choices. LL do not owe tenants a roof to live under. We also gave a right to decide through process of elimination.

You should consider how many millions of LLs are on OR and we now know you wouldn’t be option 1, 2 or 3. You come across too combative.

14 Likes
28

You keep saying their “polls” are skewed and biased.

Your previous post citing an example where you claim proves that it is biased, is actually an example of you misreading it.

You quoted:

One reason sometimes put forward is the fear of financial loss due to delayed or unpaid rent. However, an unpublished survey of 1009 private landlords undertaken by Shelter and You Gov from December 2019 to January 2020 [LR14-350] showed that:

  1. The majority of landlords surveyed are doing well financially. Eight in ten (81%) are in pre-tax profit when rent is compared to total costs and nearly half of these (39% of all landlords surveyed) say they are making ‘a lot more’. Only 8% reported making a monthly loss.

Notice that this is a paragraph and list? The list didn’t actually stop here, it continues for 2 more points:

  1. The average pre-tax profit among those making a profit was just under £650 per month.
  2. Landlords letting to benefit claimants were no less likely to be profitable than average.

Essentially the point they’re trying to make is that there’s a concern that landlords lose money. Which is a valid concern but vast majority don’t lose money. Only 8%. This is for all types of rental.

They then go on to say that those who do make profit, the average is just below £650.

These two points are not specific to tenants on benefits.

But the third point goes on to state the landlords letting to benefit claimants are no less likely to be profitable than average.

Sure you can argue that it’s less money to make from tenants on benefits and I would have said it’s fine to argue that. Making £600 a month from a private tenant then going down to £30 a month from a benefits tenant is reasonable argument to make. I see no problem with you or anybody making this.

But the law requires you to show it in quantifiable terms.

Why? Because as shown earlier, a lot of arguments against taking on benefit claimants are rubbish according to statistics.

About 50 years ago, many landlords forbade people of certain colours to live their properties. Why? They cause trouble.

Do they actually? Not really, it’s due to prejudice.

Now do the same for the disabled on benefits. You don’t wanna to let your property out to them? Prove your decision wasn’t out of your prejudice.

Rent guarantee insurance is red herring to be honest, the survey stated only 25% of landlords took it out and even then of those 25% who did take it out, 58% of the insurance brokers already said they can arrange an insurance at the same price or little increase. 42% don’t.

Your own personal experiences may show rent guarantee insurance is higher, but the statistics already say your own experience is a minority.

You think I believe the world exists within a courtroom? No I’m just telling you exactly how it’d play out and I’m also telling you it’s wrong to make decisions based on your prejudice rather than actual data.

Let’s break down your last post:

extremely limited

Limited in which ways? You’re saying they didn’t cover every possible topics? That’s not really relevant. I note that their survey did not ask how much increase/loss in profit if they took on a benefits tenant. I ask, does it matter? They’re simply only proving that profitability on average, does not change.

totally biased surveys conducted on tiny cohorts

For your information, statisticians generally agree that a sample size of 30 is enough to represent entire population of x if the data is sampled randomly. They have gone and beyond with that many times. Some exceeding 1000.

carried out by an organisation that only represents tenants

The stats I mention earlier, while is in Shelter survey, they’re actually not carried out by Shelter. They’re actually carried out by YouGov.

There’s a reason many companies use external companies to do surveys, data gathering, etc for them… it’s so they don’t get accused of bias (alongside with a few other reasons).

1 Like
29

Polls; Carried out by YouGov, arranged by Shelter.

The questions illustrated in the case example do not represent a balanced perspective from tenant and LL point of view. You are clearly unable to identify this as you cannot understand the landlords perspective. They also typically often only represent opinion and not fact. Looks like defense were poorly prepared that day.

….does asking a 1000 benefit claimants if they are behind with rent make it fact?

Shall we present data for fraudulent housing benefit claims made by tenants, to which landlord has to repay?

Thankfully almost all LL never have to prove a thing and rely on understanding and real world experience. Which you seem to think isn’t relevant but is in fact the only thing that is relevant. The occasional song and dance act of the ignorant and entitled is entertaining though.

As you seem keen on ifs, buts and maybe’s…, a landlord may have 5 properties and let one to benefits tenant. He could lose on this property yet the others make him profitable. Your stats would not reflect this.

Oh and I am telling you are wrong to blindly parrot flawed data as gospel.

4 Likes
30

Incidentally I have and do let to tenants on disability.

One worked and was a model tenant.
One didn’t work and stayed at home all day. Too much time on hands, that had increased anxiety and creating issues out of literally nothing with neighbours and all sorts. This tenant out of all of them was the most problematic over the years and created huge stress. Wear and tear was greatly increased as at home all day.

It is not only about profit. Landlord’s are not social workers nor social housing providers.

The only non working tenant I had turned out to be the worst. Coincidence?

I am of the opinion that if you dont work for it you can’t appreciate it.

5 Likes
31

Mark10 and Adele . Leave it. We are the landlords We are experienced . You.are flogging a dead horse .We all have better things to do ?

8 Likes
32

When I had non working T i would have, plenty free time now :grinning:

2 Likes
33

Jma, last comment from me so please don’t bother replying. Are all mortgage brokers discriminating against people if they refuse someone a mortgage? No, it will be based on sound financial analysis on an individual. So why shouldn’t LL have the same option to say no to individuals???

9 Likes
34

Jma

The vast majority on this forum are small time LLs with one, two or even a few properties. The case you cited is of an individual that has been discriminated against by a business reputed to be the largest in the West Midlands, with a general manager. “It is a sizeable business with 70 employees including a head of tenancies.” The judgement is basically saying that a business of this size should be able to make reasonable adjustments with no significant impact to its profits. The same can’t be said for the LL with one or two properties. If this case had been brought to the likes of the majority of LLs on this platform the judgement would have been different.

8 Likes
35

Sounds like OP - to the “T”.

Soon our eviction will be executed by warrant of bailiffs and we’ll be advertising the flat again. We’re so unbelievably selective nowadays. Over 90% of TT don’t get past second questionnaire. Only 4-6 get a viewing. Our position now is we’ll better keep a place empty for a while and make less profit. Too little legal protection. Too many entitled TT. Any doubt whatsoever - and we leave it.

6 Likes
36

Same reason Tim I kept three of mine empty for two years . Just let one now will let another and sell one Entitled is the word.

3 Likes
37

Happy New Year, Colin. Hope you’re doing well. Take care of yourself, your family and friends - and nobody else.

3 Likes
38

Likewise Tim . Non landlords will never get our point of view Waste of time in 99% in .explaining again and again. Next week it will be someone else with a gripe

7 Likes
39

I’m actually grateful to posters like that. I have a kind heart and need repeated reminder that business is not a place for kind hearts. That’s actually one of the reasons I come here, believe it or not. It helps me to get into the right mindset and put all emotions aside. No pity, no givng a chance, reminding myself that nobody will help me if things go pearshape and that I can only rely on myself.

It’s a sobering reading and I need it on a regular basis. So, I guess, thank you, OP. And good luck fighting your keyboard battles. Let’s see if they will help you rent a place. Do update us on how many LL you’ve taken to court and how it went.

11 Likes
40

My experience is that only 1 in 100 people are able to answer 5 screening questions. Majority cannot even describe their own income correctly. “What is your monthly income?” I get zero ( people actually write that in letters so there is no mistake), £70,000, etc. if I get one person who can answer I will accept them regardless as they have demonstrated a basic ability to communicate.

5 Likes