Dss Welcome!

[bomberbrown]

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-ren...y-24887297.html

Properties are available on long-term tenancies and tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit are welcome.

We have a 3 bedroom flat in Herne Hill, close to shops and public transport.

http://www.dsslondon.com

Flats and houses for families who are in receipt of Housing Benefit.

Deposit is negotiable.

It's like the mid 90's all over again.

[Mr. Miyagi]

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-ren...y-24887297.html

It's like the mid 90's all over again.

No, this time the tenants recieve the benefit from the LA and not the landlord direct. Anyone for a couple of flagons of white cider????

[pete.hpc]

It really is f*cking loathsome isn't it

I mean, it's obviously a good thing that they are discriminating less, but this shouldn't be their damn decision

Their should be nationwide legislation that says, if you go into BTL, you hand your property over in it's entirety to the tenant for the duration of the AST. You cannot pry, you cannot inspect, you cannot discriminate and you cannot tell them whether they can keep pets or children there.

You take your deposit, you collect the rent, and you stay out of their damn life. When the time comes to leave you can then inspect and apply to make any necessary deductions.

As it is, they're like little empire building busy-bodies, allowed to interfere, bully and discriminate to fuel their little landlord ego's

Cue : isss ma 'aahhhhsss, I can demand wot evah i want, innit !!! iss my pension !!! don't like it, rent something else !!

People should NEVER be allowed to speculate with something such as someones home, especially with such lax legislation and the ******ing AST

:angry:

[Financial Hack]

It really is f*cking loathsome isn't it

I mean, it's obviously a good thing that they are discriminating less, but this shouldn't be their damn decision

Their should be nationwide legislation that says, if you go into BTL, you hand your property over in it's entirety to the tenant for the duration of the AST. You cannot pry, you cannot inspect, you cannot discriminate and you cannot tell them whether they can keep pets or children there.

You take your deposit, you collect the rent, and you stay out of their damn life. When the time comes to leave you can then inspect and apply to make any necessary deductions.

As it is, they're like little empire building busy-bodies, allowed to interfere, bully and discriminate to fuel their little landlord ego's

Cue : isss ma 'aahhhhsss, I can demand wot evah i want, innit !!! iss my pension !!! don't like it, rent something else !!

People should NEVER be allowed to speculate with something such as someones home, especially with such lax legislation and the ******ing AST

:angry:

+1, well said.

[Shao Kahn]

It really is f*cking loathsome isn't it

I mean, it's obviously a good thing that they are discriminating less, but this shouldn't be their damn decision

Their should be nationwide legislation that says, if you go into BTL, you hand your property over in it's entirety to the tenant for the duration of the AST. You cannot pry, you cannot inspect, you cannot discriminate and you cannot tell them whether they can keep pets or children there.

You take your deposit, you collect the rent, and you stay out of their damn life. When the time comes to leave you can then inspect and apply to make any necessary deductions.

As it is, they're like little empire building busy-bodies, allowed to interfere, bully and discriminate to fuel their little landlord ego's

Cue : isss ma 'aahhhhsss, I can demand wot evah i want, innit !!! iss my pension !!! don't like it, rent something else !!

People should NEVER be allowed to speculate with something such as someones home, especially with such lax legislation and the ******ing AST

:angry:

+2, it really is vile. Also, on most BTL mortgage agreements, one of the clauses is that you have no DHSS, no pets, no smokers etc, so the discrimination goes right up to the top of the chain. and what did the government do about this? F-all, as is usual when moral decisions have to be made...

[dinker]

It really is f*cking loathsome isn't it

I mean, it's obviously a good thing that they are discriminating less, but this shouldn't be their damn decision

Their should be nationwide legislation that says, if you go into BTL, you hand your property over in it's entirety to the tenant for the duration of the AST. You cannot pry, you cannot inspect, you cannot discriminate and you cannot tell them whether they can keep pets or children there.

You take your deposit, you collect the rent, and you stay out of their damn life. When the time comes to leave you can then inspect and apply to make any necessary deductions.

As it is, they're like little empire building busy-bodies, allowed to interfere, bully and discriminate to fuel their little landlord ego's

Cue : isss ma 'aahhhhsss, I can demand wot evah i want, innit !!! iss my pension !!! don't like it, rent something else !!

People should NEVER be allowed to speculate with something such as someones home, especially with such lax legislation and the ******ing AST

:angry:

Benefits scum are thieving scroungers, landlords should be paid just to take them in.

[Shao Kahn]

Benefits scum are thieving scroungers, landlords should be paid just to take them in.

Sigh, here we go again...let the bigotry commence...

[PotNoodle]

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-ren...y-24887297.html

It's like the mid 90's all over again.

I have a dog and a hamster, I want a 12 month contract and I want 10% off

the rent and I do not expect to be asked to pay any ridiculous, non-refundable fees.

Now THAT would be back to the 90s.

[bobthe~]

Sigh, here we go again...let the bigotry commence...

Don't you mean irony?

[darwin]

Rents have probably fallen by so much now that levels set by the LHA look positively appealing! LOL.

You can even rent a flat in "DOLEMAN HOUSE",

[Shao Kahn]

Don't you mean irony?

Let's hope so, but I fear now this will end up another ten-page plus thread full of rabid right-wing ranting...

[kingsgate]

Freedom of contract is the key here, surely?

If someone signs a legal agreement to rent someone's house and agrees to not havign a dog, or not smoking in the house, or whatever else, then that is what they have agreed to.

It is up to them.

If they don't like it, they shouldn't rent that property.

[TeddyBear]

In many areas you get a whole lot more for benefits tenants in receipt of LHA than you do for non benefit tenants. Certainly you can in London.

[Shao Kahn]

Freedom of contract is the key here, surely?

If someone signs a legal agreement to rent someone's house and agrees to not havign a dog, or not smoking in the house, or whatever else, then that is what they have agreed to.

It is up to them.

If they don't like it, they shouldn't rent that property.

You're right, but the problem is that these kinds of clauses seem to be very prevalent these days. From your experience, is there any room for negotiation?

[Tin Foil Hat]

Problem is that there is a link (statistically) between employment status (employed, unemployed, student) and the likelihood of a house being a smooth tenancy. I only say this from my own experiences in all three categories and those of friends I've seen over the years.

The student houses were a nightmare for the LL's, but the properties weren't maintained (I had horse flies coming out of a straw mattress and got some nasty bites) all the way to a smooth as you like year when 3 of us were all working (different house, no infestations).

It's the same as a statistical association between social/ethnic/race groups and crime/employment/use of public services, such as the recent gypsy/traveller plans for the east of England plan - you're branded a racist if you mention anything to do with social groups and comments are ignored under the race card system they operate.

Whilst people can discriminate they will. I think the trick here is once again down to the individual taking responsibility for their existence and how they conduct themselves. Once people don't behave in ways that others find unacceptable (like students trashing houses) then the stigma goes with it.

Of course if it won't happen naturally then NuLab will just outlaw it and then pretend it doesn't exist, USSR style.

Expect employment status discrimination law soon to change to get more unemployed DSS recipients into LL's rentals. Then watch the BTL market recede and more houses become available.

TFH

Edited March 9, 2009 by Tin Foil Hat

[EUBanana]

Benefits scum are thieving scroungers, landlords should be paid just to take them in.

Some time ago (2003 ish) I lost my job after being gainfully employed for a good three years. I got on very well with my landlord (I generally do, not anti-landlord, me) but he was very iffy about being paid by the DSS. I quizzed him as to why.

Apparently they are just cr ap, late payments, wrong payments, oodles of red tape, etc, and that was why he didn't like them. Nothing to do with me, as he knew me and thought I was a good tenant already.

[alexw]

Freedom of contract is the key here, surely?

If someone signs a legal agreement to rent someone's house and agrees to not havign a dog, or not smoking in the house, or whatever else, then that is what they have agreed to.

It is up to them.

If they don't like it, they shouldn't rent that property.

The problem is shelter is a very basic necessity, the same as food, water, clothing, warmth.

None of the others are discriminated against in this manner.

[evictee]

...but he was very iffy about being paid by the DSS. I quizzed him as to why.

Apparently they are just cr ap, late payments, wrong payments, oodles of red tape, etc, and that was why he didn't like them.

Well, with payments being channelled via the tenant now, he'll be one step removed from all that. Things will be much simpler for him I imagine.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

You take your deposit, you collect the rent, and you stay out of their damn life. When the time comes to leave you can then inspect and apply to make any necessary deductions.

As it is, they're like little empire building busy-bodies, allowed to interfere, bully and discriminate to fuel their little landlord ego's

Cue : isss ma 'aahhhhsss, I can demand wot evah i want, innit !!! iss my pension !!! don't like it, rent something else !!

People should NEVER be allowed to speculate with something such as someones home, especially with such lax legislation and the ******ing AST

To be fair, you probably could get those terms now, you'de just need to pay a bigger deposit. Much bigger.

If a heavy smoker rents a house for 6 months, you cannot rent it to non-smokers until you've basically gutted it as the place will smell of smoke until you do. Curtain, carpets, sofas, all need to be AT LEAST professional cleaned to remove the smell of smoke, possibly replaced. Meanwhile the place will need to be fully redecorated and the ceilings painted with a special paint to cover the tar. £650 deposit wont cover all that. Think £6500 deposit.

Likewise if someone with a dog moves in then most likely this will wear the carpets a lot quicker and possibly bring in fleas. And then of course, after Mr Dog owner moves out, you can't rent the house to someone with pet allergies without gutting the place again. The same applies to children and the amount of damage they do by their mear presence... £650 will never cover it.

Same with DSS... Landlords worry about rent problems. If your paying a £3000 deposit plus a full 6 months rent up front, they wont worry about how you're paying for it. On the other hand, if your paying £650 deposit and can't explain how you plan to make the second months rent payment, the LL is going to be nervous.

I'm not trying to justify the LL attitude, but when you look at the flipside, you can see why, if they have a choice, they'de prefer to enforce those rules. Renting out is a risk balancing act, balancing the risk of damage against the size of the deposit.

Edited for dyslexia.

Edited March 9, 2009 by TaxAbuserOfTheWeek

[ChadzKhan]

To be fair, you probably could get those terms now, you'de just need to pay a bigger deposit. Much bigger.

If a heavy smoker rents a house for 6 months, you cannot rent it to non-smokers until you've basically gutted it as the place will smell of smoke until you do. Curtain, carpets, sofas, all need to be AT LEAST professional cleaned to remove the smell of smoke, possibly replaced. Meanwhile the place will need to be fully redecorated at the ceilings painted with a special paint to cover the tar. £650 deposit wont cover all that. This £6500 deposit.

Likewise if someone with a dog moves in then most likely this will wear the carpets a lot quicker and possibly bring in fleas. And then of course, after Mr Dog owner moves out, you can't rent the house to someone with pet allergies without gutting the place again. The same applies to children and the amount of damage they do by there mear presence... £650 will never cover it.

Same with DSS... Landlords worry about rent problems. If your paying a £3000 deposit plus the full 6 months rent up front, they wont worry about how you're paying for it. On the other hand, if your paying £650 deposit and can't explain how you plan to make the second months rent payment, the LL is going to be nervious.

I'm not trying to justify the LL attitude, but when you look at the flipside, you can see whey, if they have a choice, they'de prefer to enforce those rules. Renting out is a risk balancing act, balancing the risk of damage against the size of the deposit.

+1 Fair point made well.

edit:typo

Edited March 9, 2009 by ChadzKhan

[Abstra]

Rents have probably fallen by so much now that levels set by the LHA look positively appealing! LOL.

You can even rent a flat in "DOLEMAN HOUSE",

I live in Southampton and I know for a fact that DHSS are paying more for rent than the landlords were getting privately. One bod I know will have his rent reduced back when he gets a job again because he will be paying it not the LA.

[kingsgate]

I have had good and very bad experiences with DSS tenants.

And with getting paid by the councils.

One worry generally is the lack of control these people have over their income.

The number of times non-payment is blamed on "trouble with their benefit". Nothing they can do, or that I can do, except wait, meanwhile my own costs have to be met.

I have had several cases of benefit claimant tenants who lived like pigs and totally messed up a newly-fixed up house. It was fine for them, they like to live in dirt and mess, but as another poster pointed out, you can't then rent the place to others without cleaning up after the pigs leave.

[pete.hpc]

To be fair, you probably could get those terms now, you'de just need to pay a bigger deposit. Much bigger.

If a heavy smoker rents a house for 6 months, you cannot rent it to non-smokers until you've basically gutted it as the place will smell of smoke until you do. Curtain, carpets, sofas, all need to be AT LEAST professional cleaned to remove the smell of smoke, possibly replaced. Meanwhile the place will need to be fully redecorated at the ceilings painted with a special paint to cover the tar. £650 deposit wont cover all that. This £6500 deposit.

Likewise if someone with a dog moves in then most likely this will wear the carpets a lot quicker and possibly bring in fleas. And then of course, after Mr Dog owner moves out, you can't rent the house to someone with pet allergies without gutting the place again. The same applies to children and the amount of damage they do by there mear presence... £650 will never cover it.

Same with DSS... Landlords worry about rent problems. If your paying a £3000 deposit plus the full 6 months rent up front, they wont worry about how you're paying for it. On the other hand, if your paying £650 deposit and can't explain how you plan to make the second months rent payment, the LL is going to be nervious.

I'm not trying to justify the LL attitude, but when you look at the flipside, you can see whey, if they have a choice, they'de prefer to enforce those rules. Renting out is a risk balancing act, balancing the risk of damage against the size of the deposit.

Fair points. The actual legislation should sit somewhere between the current situation and my alternative extreme suggestions, but not where we are at the moment.

[Shao Kahn]

Problem is that there is a link (statistically) between employment status (employed, unemployed, student) and the likelihood of a house being a smooth tenancy. I only say this from my own experiences in all three categories and those of friends I've seen over the years.

The student houses were a nightmare for the LL's, but the properties weren't maintained (I had horse flies coming out of a straw mattress and got some nasty bites) all the way to a smooth as you like year when 3 of us were all working (different house, no infestations).

It's the same as a statistical association between social/ethnic/race groups and crime/employment/use of public services, such as the recent gypsy/traveller plans for the east of England plan - you're branded a racist if you mention anything to do with social groups and comments are ignored under the race card system they operate.

Whilst people can discriminate they will. I think the trick here is once again down to the individual taking responsibility for their existence and how they conduct themselves. Once people don't behave in ways that others find unacceptable (like students trashing houses) then the stigma goes with it.

Of course if it won't happen naturally then NuLab will just outlaw it and then pretend it doesn't exist, USSR style.

Expect employment status discrimination law soon to change to get more unemployed DSS recipients into LL's rentals. Then watch the BTL market recede and more houses become available.

TFH

A lot of people renting off the housing association I'm with now are unemployed, so am I at present. Most of us treat the place as if it was our own, due to the fully assured tenancy, which we all recognise is a great gift in the present environment. We paint, decorate and upkeep the property in our own manner, we all pay the rent on time, statistically very, very few are in arrears with rent (I am on a tenants advisory board working with the association and have seen the statistics in the flesh), and there are very few antisocial incidents etc. Of course, there are some, as there are some rent arrears, places falling into disrepair etc. But, they're of a minority, as with any other subject or category, there is the perception that a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

Take the private rentals in the same street. This street which we all live in is a regency crescent. The private rentals are all falling apart, the windows are mouldy, in some of them the glass above the doors has been smashed by what looks like someone throwing a bottle or full can of beer through it, the tenants are transient in nature due to their ASTs, especially the Eastern European economic migrant ones, and so don't give a monkeys about the area and don't form any neighbourly relationships, a lot of them (the U.K citizens) come in pissed at three in the morning and wake the whole street up etc.

What is needed is the opposite to what we have. We need a strongly-regulated, tenant friendly legislative environment, like in the more enlightened western-European countries, where most have fully assured tenancies through housing associations or local authorities, or various other regulated social landlords, and can live in whatever manner or by whatever lifestyle they please, provided they pay their rent on time, do not cause antisocial behaviour, respect their neighbours and their surroundings, maintain the property as if it was their own, do not commit criminal activites, etc. Then, there should be a private rental sector, with ASTs where all the scum should live, run by landlords like Van Hoogstraten, and if they act up like they do at present then they should be thrown onto the streets. Perhaps then they might behave? Students should also have ASTs, not because they're scum - they are, of course, nothing of the sort, but because they're transient in nature.

Sadly on here, it seems that there are too many "bears" waiting to become the next BTL landlords and then fock everyone else, in particular, the next generation down from them, over, in the way that they perceive that they have been. Not healthy...money isn't everything, FFS.

Just my tuppence worth...

[Shao Kahn]

Some time ago (2003 ish) I lost my job after being gainfully employed for a good three years. I got on very well with my landlord (I generally do, not anti-landlord, me) but he was very iffy about being paid by the DSS. I quizzed him as to why.

Apparently they are just cr ap, late payments, wrong payments, oodles of red tape, etc, and that was why he didn't like them. Nothing to do with me, as he knew me and thought I was a good tenant already.

Why not then landlords accept DHSS tenants, but on the proviso that the rent is paid directly to the landlord by the local authority and not to the tenant (New Labour are trying to encourage the latter for some reason), and the tenancy can only start after the final agreement to the housing benefit has been agreed by the local council. Once it is all agreed, from my experience, the payments from the council are always regular and on time. And, if the tenant doesn't like this set-up, then the landlord doesn't have to enter the contract.

A lot of good ideas and opinions could come out of this topic. Let's just keep all of the "benefits claimants = pieces of human shite" w@nkers out of the debate...