Technically we can all say we’re not DSS, since DSS became DWP back in 2001.Most people now who relied on tax credits and council support for rent have been migrated over to U.C which rolls all benefits into one entity.
I am a single father working p/t and receiving U.C. I used to work full time and an evening job for over ten years, 9a.m until 2 a.m on most occasions, after a few years I lost my marriage due to ex having affair (I was never home) to being a single dad with nothing but our clothes on our backs and a few quid, since 2019 I have a good job but still rely on U.C for support, I have never faulted in a rental payment, I have outstanding references from every landlord I’ve been with, when I see no DSS accepted (me) I see a system that punishes good tenants for bad tenants behaviour, even when individual has proved their worth.
I deleted the account because I really wasn’t planning to get into a protracted discussion. I’m not overly excited about the prospect of citing published statutes and relevant case law that you could easily verify, only to have you assert that it actually doesn’t exist because you don’t agree with it.
You wouldn’t know where to begin because you know you don’t actually have a solid legal argument to rely on.
‘Your way’ might work when you’re able to persuade tenants that you know something they don’t, but we both know that if it comes down to a point of law then a judge is going to take a dim view of a case that’s ended up in front of them because it could have been settled reasonably out of court or prior to tribunal but you insisted on making up your own rules. I agree that it’s your business and that you decide what risks to take, but in my experience when it’s the landlord’s personal opinion on what they should be able to do going up against the tenant’s well-evidenced claim or defence on a relevant point of law, reality usually ends up having more weight than the landlord’s perception of reality.
I’ve seen plenty of rogue landlords who are very certain that they’re untouchable up until a judge disagrees with that assessment.
Shame you deleted your extremely lengthy post as there were some actually some good points. Did you feel the need to reverse some of your distorted opinions perhaps?
Reply upon for what exactly? I have no argument to defend. Believe me, i am as thorough and resourceful as I need to be when the reason warrants the effort.
To presume that any landlord who has certain real world experience and fact-based ideas about long term DSS tenants are the same as rogue landlords demonstrates absolute ignorant stereotyping and very poor judgement and undermines any credibility that you may have had.
To borrow aspects of your now deleted and incorrectly used comment, based on a misinterpretation of this thread, “It is a totally unhinged opinion to assume all landlords are the same based on a small number of bad eggs”. Not exactly reasonable thinking.
You should walk in the shoes of those you criticise so readily for a while, you might then have a more useful insight into the realities, until then just continue to parrot the law and label away until your hearts content.
The reason I deleted the post was because I had decided it wasn’t worth getting into it when there’s probably very little chance of actually changing minds here and also because that account previously had personal data associated with it and despite the privacy features there’s always an outside possibility of doxxing which I could do without the hassle of. By the time you’d replied I’d deleted the post hours ago but it doesn’t take effect straight away.
My point is, it might be the case that when you’re actually looking to discriminate on the basis of factors that would be illegal if you did so overtly that you take steps to mitigate your liability that people who get caught out wouldn’t. All that means is that you’re more capable when it comes to engaging in shady practices.
I’m not denying that it might be on the whole easier to have a certain type of person as a tenant, but you can’t on the one hand claim that private landlords provide a vital service where the government has failed by making housing available, and on the other be risk-adverse in such a way that creates barriers to people who are more likely to suffer disadvantage e.g. through disability to access housing. You are either providing a public service, or you’re out to make money for yourself and you don’t get to have that cut both ways.
Objectively speaking, private landlords discriminating against people on benefits disproportionately affects people for whom claiming benefits is their only option whether the landlords do so in a way that gives them plausible deniability to avoid legal challenges or not. I’m sure we both agree that the public sector should do a lot more to make housing available and accessible for people who suffer disadvantage, but that alone doesn’t absolve you from any responsibility to not contribute to the problem. Private individuals or businesses owning multiple houses means that they are necessarily directly able to impact the supply of housing, and limiting that supply to only people who are capable of work or who earn above a certain threshold by extension limits the supply to people who are through no fault of their own unable to do so.
I’m not suggesting that you should operate as a charity. It’s not like one person can solve the housing crisis, but what I am suggesting is that if a person can actually afford the accommodation but you discriminate against them because of the specific means by which they can afford it because it would mean the possibility of taking on a bit of additional risk, then to refuse to is unethical and you are directly contributing to the kind of misery that anti-discrimination laws are designed to address.
By all means, if you don’t think that ethics and having social responsibility are your concern then there’s no reason for you not to continue to discriminate. You just don’t get to do that and also frame it as anything other than exploiting housing scarcity for personal profit.
It’s not as though this isn’t something you’re consciously aware of. You’re open about the fact that there are vastly more people applying to rent houses than there are houses to rent, and as you are able to choose, it is most convenient for you to choose the applicant whose circumstances are the most advantageous. Another way of looking at this, is that private landlords act as gatekeepers for the supply of available housing and prevent people on benefits from being able to access it. Whether or not you think you should be in a position where you are the final arbiter of who gets to have a roof over their head is irrelevant; the reality is that this is the position you are in, and you wield that considerable power to prioritise your own convenience in the minimisation of risk over the needs of vulnerable people.
This is not an insignificant factor in the overrepresentation of people with vulnerabilities in the homeless population. It’s not that I don’t understand why you operate in the way you do, I just don’t think that the profit incentive justifies the demonstrable harm. For example let’s say I sell mobile phone contracts for a living, and I can make more money by convincing the elderly to buy plans they don’t actually need but I make sure I don’t technically break the law so it’s all above board. If I acted ethically, I would make less money and there is literally nothing that would require me to change the way I operate - I think I would still have a hard time justifying that I’m doing the right thing or that what I do doesn’t harm people.
if you were able to make your points more succinctly, more of us would understand them.
Hi Jma,
I have faced exactly the same problem couple of years ago, struggling to find an accommodation just because I was on a universal credit.
I do absolutely agree with you this is a kind of discrimination.
I have read the LL responses to your post and sadly it was very frustrating to find out how people became greedy, cruel, selfish and literally blank with only ONE big point in a miserable mind which is - MY MONEY, MY MONEY, MY MONEY.
I do not understand why would you have to be so mean to the people who are less fortunate?
Why do you want to offend and actually you do that by humiliating DSS tenants to get the rent payment straight into your account from DWP, because by doing this you are expressing your disrespect based on the lack of trust to the tenant from the beginning!
Behaving this way do you really think that you would be respected and trusted by the tenant?
Don’t you understand that you hurt the pride of the person who is looking for home???
You lost your humanity amongst all your made up and disgusting rules and assumptions guys.
You do not understand that your security is going through ensuring others security and only that time you will be protected from “BAD TENANTS”, that is how you think.
You cannot wash your hands using only one of them, so be honest, be kind, give a reasonable prices and show affectionate and fairness in order to get back the same.
You are expecting the best while you are seeding the worst yourself, which is contradicting the human’s life balance and overall life on the earth.
Go ahead Jma and I do believe that you’ll win and I sincerely wish you to have the best of luck.
I disagree, Landlords have a right to know where the rent is coming from.
Plenty of posts on here about why some landlords want direct payment. They don’t know the tenant. If someone is offended by this then they lack the ability to see things from any perspective other than their own.
You have preferred areas to live in, you avoid certain areas due to its reputation and facts about it or your experiences of living there previously.
Tenants don’t know landlords too, however in such a situation tenants are becoming most of the time vulnerable because of unethical greediness and behaviour of the landlord.
So far I have changed 2 accommodations just because of the landlords and still looking for a new place because still not satisfied by the landlord’s behaviour.
When I was on universal credit I never missed my payments and yet my landlord kept increasing the rent saying that there is not guarantee as I am on benefit.
I couldn’t find home for myself just because was on benefit and you are telling me that is fair what you landlords are doing and demanding?
You find this right to humiliate the person for this?
Please just try to put yourself in the shoes of the people who are in that situation and then think and try to understand and help.
No one guaranteed from losing job and home in these days of uncertainty and you could be next.
Where did I say it was fair? My point was about direct payment of rent to reduce risk, and that the stats tell us that tenants on benefits are at much higher risk of missing rent payments. Those who work and claim no benefits with low disposable income are at higher risk of defaulting also. The eviction process is costly and time consuming, small landlords especially want to avoid this. There are systems in place that that allow tenants to contest unfair rent increases, for example if it exceeds local market value.
Undoubtedly some landlords increase rent unfairly and purely down to greed and do not care about the tenant and quite happily replace them, this is more likely to be large landlords. There are also those that increase rents due to having to, IE due to mortgage rate increases and increased overheads, or if the rent is way below market value. I believe rent increases should be incremental but for some this isn’t always possible. There are however many ethical landlords, who appreciate the tenants circumstances and do all they can to ensure a mutually fair tenancy. Many who are on this forum in fact. Half of the battle is a tenant finding a fair landlord and a landlord finding a fair tenant.
Housing benefit rates haven’t increased in a long time and way behind actual rent values.
Well to prove your point I sincerely hope your current Landlord reads your comments demonstrating your feelings and attitude towards his profession. But one thing is absolutely certain , you will never ever become a tenant in any of my properties.
A word of good advice Mr Goat Face. Never bite any of the hands that may feed you at some stage in your miserable life, there’s a good boy!! As you claim to be the perfect Angler, the only thing you’ve successfully caught is yourself!!!
One point to remember is that discrimination against “protected characteristics” is illegal. Race, disability are protected characteristics. Being in receipt of housing benefit is not. It doesn’t mean blanket refusal to take people on benefits is acceptable but the legal bar is different .
Indirect discrimination is also illegal though.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.