It is set high to preclude benefits tenants by implication. You can’t have an equal scenario where benefits tenants cannot rent by their status and someone judges the affordability bar too high. It essentially amounts to the same thing.
Civil (Tort) law is not just formed by statute - it is formed by binding precedent too where a judge takes the ratio decidendi (reason for deciding) to the next court.
So if you say ‘buy your own place if you want a dog’ to your prospective tenant as you said in another post, regardless of whether the renters right act has come in, you could be found to discriminate and someone could bring a claim against you.
Let’s say that dog is say a service dog for ptsd and the tenant a soldier, that would probably be (in light of the fact the government are tabling outlawing people declining tenants with dogs under RRA) it would make it a whole lot easier for someone to pursue a claim against you following the case law route and evidence of discrimination - probably indirect discrimination and you can read up what indirect discrimination is.
The soldiers mental health characteristic is protected and your policy to not allow dogs because they pee on floors places them at a significant disadvantage against his comparator - someone who has ptsd but doesn’t own a dog who you let too.
My last comment on this topic….
Most of what you said in your post is correct.
“to not allow dogs because they pee on floors”
Down playing and misquoting illustrates your failure to grasp all of the concerns and the realities.
“ buy your own place if you want a dog”
Out of context. Was in reply to your flippant post of “landlords sell your rental if you dont want to rent to people with dogs”.
Many landlords have no issue with assistance dogs as they know they are highly trained. It’s dogs as pets.
Whatever happens, with the RRA rents will rise massively as more small landlords sell, pet ownership will bring down standards, as will the growing corporate landlords as they continue to behave ruthlessly. (Repeatedly voted the worst for performance in tenant polls).
You may want to think about contacting your MP and the government with your grievances and how the RRA will damage things for you as a tenant if it remains in its current form.
I also suggest that you read the summary of the recent amendment proposals conducted in the House of Lords.
1 Like
Again it’s on all the circumstances of the case not applying one rule for assistance dogs blindly, like applying salary reqs blindly. For goodness sake.
@S-155 as a matter of interest, do you think the RRB will be a good thing for tenants ?
1 Like
The jury is out still but if you are going to have statute that Universal credit tenants are going to be protected against discrimination yet landlords just increase the income requirements to weed such tenants out who can afford the property and government don’t decide what is affordable requirements that landlords can stipulate, then the legislation doesn’t achieve what it sets out to achieve, nor is it in public interest. It should be clear so good landlords can still be in the game and those who don’t form relations with tenants and just experience problems from tenants that inevitably happens from this scenario……one easy thing for you…….don’t become a landlord. Invest in shares instead.
At the risk of flogging a dead horse, the idea of requiring 30x rent as annual income is to stop rent becoming an unaffordable burden - just because you as an individual are happy to spend more than a third of your income on rent, doesn’t mean anyone else is happy or able to. The figure has not just been plucked out of thin air and must have been calculated somewhere along the line to make sure rental payments are affordable for the masses. This also isn’t a new thing - the first house I rented as a tenant was 20+ years ago and the calculation was there then.
Using rough maths, someone earning £30k and paying £1,000 per month in rent will have approx £1,093 remaining to pay all other bills, food, car, etc.
My families fairly modest Gas/Electric/Water currently comes to around £200 per month, then (just based on myself) insurance (house and car), car tax, mobile phone, broadband, council tax come to approx £260 which leaves £633 for food, fuel, savings, holidays, etc.
So as you can see, there’s not a whole lot left if it goes much lower than a 30x multiplier.
What should change in my opinion is the calculation should be made on a multiplier of NET income rather than GROSS income as that way it would be fairer to UC claimants. For example, someone on a £30k wage gets around £25k after tax whereas someone getting £20k UC keeps the full £20k.
1 Like
It’s not got anything to do with affordability in this climate it’s just an over eager bank or insurer that doesn’t know how poorer people live. We don’t need the money to go on holidays. Some people don’t even have cars etc and family members help them out - food etc. You can’t apply your situation to someone else neither should you.
This is the very thing that will happen. Existing Landlords are leaving the sector and as your statement advices , no one will want to become a Landlord as it’s not an appealing prospect. If it’s difficult for some people to find property to rent at the moment , the situation is not going to improve with less available property and less people willing to provide it.
1 Like
The government will have to sort it out if the situation continues with huge population increases and it looks like I’m gonna be homeless anyway where I can probably get local authority to treat me as a priority because all the landlords are discriminating. I’m considering pursuing a civil case against a letting agent on this x30 requirement and hopefully as a test case.
But also if you’ve got landlords who think ‘buy your own place if you want a dog’ like the mark guy and harbour views about not letting to UC tenants this is what is hugely restricting supply in any event where you’ve got earnings below rents. The guy talking about you need x30 to pay for a car / holidays etc - people on low incomes often don’t have these. A total lack of understanding about the sacrifices people make to use most of available income for rent.
gaz and mark. surprised you lasted this long ! !
2 Likes
There is no other side of the coin or bending the rules . Case law and upcoming renters rights act make it such you cannot discriminate against benefit tenants. End of. [quote=“Mark10, post:54, topic:79250, full:true”]
Victim mentality. No reasoning, no ability to actually consider the other side of the coin.
[/quote]
Unless they simply can’t afford it ?
If someone comes to you and they definitely cannot afford it, for instance they have very little benefits or no income or savings or guarantor etc, and it’s well under what they have afforded and can afford (objective and subjective tests) then under the equality act a defence to discrimination is that the discrimination “is a proportionate means of a legitimate aim” as quoted in the equality act 2010 I.e an issue of affordability.
If you use use a cut off of x30 rentable income when the person can afford it on x28 or even x20 income when the checking company says they need x30 and other reasons are in the mix as to affordability and you haven’t looked at all the factors fairly, then there is scope for a tenant to argue that you are directly discriminating (section 13) against them on the basis of the case law around not allowing benefit tenants if it’s blatant the landlord didn’t want benefit tenants. It would be the easiest thing in the world for any open rent tenant to see if this is the case in the answers they get from the landlord. Also potentially because of and arising out of disability under section 15 - for example a benefit tenant has a lower income due to poor health if you can’t show the defence is a reasonable one too. Also there is potential to argue the x30 policy if it’s not flexible and the tenant can afford to rent it, there is indirect discrimination as well. The equality act doesn’t preclude too a tenant arguing various sections so direct, indirect and arising out of disability.
Bear in mind from a legal standpoint the claimant needs to show the breach and the duty is on them to prove that aspect beyond the ‘balance of probability’ as the test in civil cases and as opposed to criminal cases ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ . That’s with any claimant and is called onus of proof. But if you present a ‘proportionate means of a legitimate aim’ defence of affordability then the claimant has still shown the breach and you’ve still breached the equality act as a landlord but the onus then shifts to you to show that defence operates to mitigate the breach and that your breaching the equality act for reasons of affordability as a ‘proportionate means of a legitimate aim’ is reasonable and legitimate.
So the moral is landlords if you make judgements about tenants and affordability that potentially could open yourself up to claims of discrimination then you need to show your decisions were fair and reasonable ones to discriminate, on all the facts. It’s not simply you can say they are reasonable and a x30 requirement is all that’s needed to be reasonable because courts look at all the circumstances as to whether someone can afford a property and you would obviously reasonably expect a judge to do that and look at all the facts in affordability in summing up the case.
This rule would be particularly unfair and potentially more discriminatory where the landlord doesn’t have a mortgage or rent protection insurance but uses a checking company who institute this rule but the tenant can still show they can afford the property.
Ah , I see , 20 characters
Waste of time David Round in circles
It’s more the fact some landlords just don’t want to understand the law.
Out of curiosity @S-155, how did you pick your Landlord?
I assume from your comment above, that you will have used your good old fashioned judgement, rather than just using numbers / data.
How has that ended up?, as I note, from your post below that your Landlord has failed to be professional, and correctly lodge your deposit.
Is your experience a demonstration of why Landlords should not just use good old fashioned personality. Whilst the numbers / data & affordability levels might not be perfect, clearly the good old fashioned ways aren’t either, as is demonstrated by your pick of your Landlord.
I met him initially with the agent and he seemed nice. We’ve had a very good relationship for most of the very extended tenancy and the agent dropped out and he saved money.
It’s gone bad when he wouldn’t consider selling with me as a sitting tenant and communicating over same, nor considering I’m likely going to be homeless as I can’t get another tenancy with this x30 earnings requirement and most letting agents are picking others with me on universal credit starting a business. My only hope is the council help but it’s making me feel suicidal at present.
I did use judgement to the extent I did have similar properties to pick but I picked him and a combination of the property too, because he is mainly decent.
My experience is that my relationships with landlords has gone very well when there is quid pro quo - they do things and so do I (quick dealing with repairs and me looking after property immaculately as I have and reducing the strain on landlords and helping with organising works needing doing etc).
I do think it’s best to use mainly personality but I think things go wrong where people don’t respect the other side and don’t have a personal relationship with their tenant. They don’t need to be friends but they must know them and form a relationship. Judging by the comments of many other landlords of this forum including the guy who said ‘buy your own house if you want a dog’ it’s not hard to envisage why things go wrong.
My attitude is because he hasn’t chatted about trying to sell as a siting tenant and he is making the end of the tenancy difficult and not trying to ensure I come out ok and at least try and sell to a landlord which he previously indicated he would (he has wanted to sell for over a year) then I’ll exercise my right to claim x3 the deposit and he can deal with that. I wouldn’t do this if he had tried to sell to another landlord at a competitive market price.
I personally think long term landlords should make steps in regard to tenants to keep them there if possible. Of course if the price is markedly different to what he expects then he should sell to an owner/occupier but it’s a small 1 bed flat and the offers are going to be close. I think the new renters rights act should make these provisions if landlords get housing benefit and their properties are subsidised and the tenants have been long term because to move tenants out of housing stock in this climate if otherwise not needed, is very unhelpful. The situation of him selling to another landlord who rents to someone else is ridiculous.