I’ve been on here a while and I’ve never seen this. There are good and bad tenants, but any LL making generalised statements that equate to people on benefits being “scum” would quickly be closed down.
You’re in an extremely difficult situation and I would give the same advice that I gave to S-155: where I am £1500 a month would get you a four bed house in a really nice area. Making a new start in a place where financial pressures aren’t as acute is highly recommended. I’ve done it myself, and I’d never go back.
This seems really harsh, do you know how many people are on benefits for many reasons other than they are sub letting and frausters? I think it’s up to the goverment to make sure they aren’t wasting money and allowing people to do that then more checks should be implemented but speaking about people like me that are disabled at no choice of their own is pretty mean and disgusting to be honest.
I literally can’t do that, I have specialised doctors were I live, anyone who supports me is local I am already a burden on those around me, if I was to move areas and have no support at all, I don’t think I would last very long. I am trying to move out around half an hour from where I am now and even that is going to have a profound afffect on hospital apps and so on. It’s honestly the worst situation I have ever been in and to top that off I have a mental health condition and rejection is like a dagger in my heart anytime it comes, constantly being told I’m not good enough, can’t afford it, can’t insure me because of my issues, it just has got to the point I have given up. Even reading people’s replies on this post makes me feel so ashamed.
If I could have details of a solicitor you have used that would be great because I really do need help.
Thanks
No LL has ever used the word Scum. IT always comes down to does the LL think the tenant can afford it? NOT does the tenant think the tenant can afford it PS what you have been told are REASONS not excuses A reason is based on the truth of your situation . You can only keep trying and put your point to a landlord not an agent?
Is 30x income discrimination. I don’t think so. If a person had 30k salary then they would take home about 2k a month. (less if they had student loan to pay). This would mean that on a 1k rent 50% of income would be rent. Then there would be bills and council tax etc so it sounds realistic.
This is a bit more complicated than you suggest. While active discrimination on the grounds of protected characteristics is illegal - selling or renting services to those who cannot afford those services is not.
Housing benefit levels are set so they match cheapest 30% of properties in a local authority area. This means for 70% of properties will ALWAYS be unaffordable for those claiming housing benefits. Even if the market rent falls the housing benefit will fall to match so 70% of properties will still be inaccessible.
But in addition to this there are additional problems. It is normal to pay rent in advance but housing benefits are usually paid in arrears. A landlord can’t specify no benefits but can QUITE LEGALLY treat a benefits applicant equally with working applicant in assessing their likehood of being able to comply with the in advance payments - but because of benefits rules a benefits claimant is less likely able to comply with this .
Another serious problem is that landlords depends on credit checks and while an employer will often provide evidence of a wage in advance, they have an obligation not to let to those who can’t afford it and doing so will often void their insurance - the benefits agencies won’t do this! So Landlords don’t break the law if they judge an application on affordability rather if a person is on benefits or not. Sadly this means people on benefits often fail the checks they do - but this is not the fault of the landlords but reflects the inadequacies of benefit levels.
Landlords also should also about age sex and number of occupants,. and they have a right to do so as they have a legal obligation to avoid over occupation (eg a situation where male and female teenagers share a room ) This is not discrimination but an important part of compliance with the law.
I have no doubt there are landlords who discriminate - but not letting to those who cannot afford the property is not discrimination.
Once you realise that 70% of private rental property is not accessible to benefits claimants BY how the level of benefits is defined even if rents dropped steeply despite the fact that way more than than many benefits claimants need housing in the private sector as they can’t get council or social housing you realise the problem is primarily with the benefits system. ( BTW private landlords pay loads more tax and fees than council and social housing providers do and get none of the subsidies they do - so always have to charge more than they do just to break even - even so few manage to but only because they pay themselves less than the council housing officials are payed )
This is a stellar argument and I agree with it whole heartedly .
What is perceived as discrimination in fact is not it’s a risk assessment and it does not make good sense to put oneself at risk. Unfortunately, Angela and her cronies don’t see us as a business put a prop to support governmental shortcomings and wastage. The economy reflects a bunch of uneducated misfits who have no idea what they are doing.
Sanctimony and hypocrisy are the only qualifications government excel in .
Would any of these get equivalent posts in the private sector. Unlikely.
One would lose their job if their cv was misrepresented . Complaints handled vs economics guru …..
Our issue is RRB.
So you sign the contract but if they don’t pay you are stuck . You have to give the keys
Your contract can state rent in advance but you have to give keys over even if they don’t pay
The RRB circumvents rent in advance and also introduces indirect rent control.