Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Legal victories over 'No DSS' letting agents


Recommended Posts

Legal victories over 'No DSS' letting agents

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-51642316

Quote

The battle against the discriminatory practice of landlords not renting to benefit claimants has intensified after legal victories by two single mothers.

Amanda Staples and Emma Loffler both won out-of-court settlements against "No DSS" letting agents, on the grounds of indirect discrimination.

In a 2018 case, another single mother, Rosie Keogh, backed by charity Shelter, successfully argued blanket bans on claimants indirectly discriminated against women and disabled people who are more likely to be on benefits.

Ms Keogh's case was cited in letters of complaint Ms Staples and Ms Loffler wrote to different letting agents who had refused to show them properties.

Shelter took on their legal cases when the agents refused to budge.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure this will make a meaningful difference. It doesn't stop landlords using credit refrencing to decide who is a suitable candidate. Now they have to show DSS people flats but they can reject them when they fail the credit refrencing.

I know that credit refrencing scores like Experian are worthless..... But I can see a future where landlords start writing 'Expirian 800+' or something similar in adverts instead. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, spyguy said:

Not defending LL but a lot of mortgages and home insurers will not allow DSS tenants.

 

Are non DSS tenants less likely to default on the rent?  Are DSS tenants more likely to smash the place up?

Edited by Dave Beans
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave Beans said:

Are non DSS tenants less likely to default on the rent?  Are DSS tenants more likely to smash the place up?

As Habeus says, more wear n tear.

The problem with social tenants edp. in the North is the LA tend to flip the really bad tenants to the private sector.

Also, when stuff goes wrong and or money blip, they don't have much money.

And... you are at the mercy on benefit policies and whether the tenant is found didflingthe DSS.

It used to be that the LA could claim back rent from LL if the tenant was scamming HB.

Edited by spyguy
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, spyguy said:

As Habeus says, more wear n tear.

The problem with social tenants edp. in the North is the LA tend to flip the really bad tenants to the private sector.

Also, when stuff goes wrong and or money blip, they don't have much money.

And... you are at the mercy on benefit policies and whether the tenant is found didflingthe DSS.

It used to be that the LA could claim back rent from LL if the tenant was scamming HB.

You can also have an idiot "professional" who decides to put their head through the windows (or whatever)... If you're on DSS and you know that its ruddy hard to get another place (and social housing isn't always available) so they'd behave...You get idiots on both sides of the coin....otherwise the alternative is temporary housing..

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, regprentice said:

I know that credit refrencing scores like Experian are worthless..... But I can see a future where landlords start writing 'Expirian 800+' or something similar in adverts instead. 

Experian and Equifax do not hold a "score" or "rating". This is a very common misconception which just won't die.

They only hold the RAW DATA, which the lenders query, then each LENDER uses their own algorithm and weightings to "score" the candidate.

This is conflated by Experian's website "products" such as those which give you an example score, ie "the sort of number which a lender might come up with based on the data", without making this clear enough.

The raw data is not "worthless", it's all the data in total, and it's worth whatever each lender wants to do with it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, spyguy said:

Not defending LL but a lot of mortgages and home insurers will not allow DSS tenants.

 

this is mentioned in the article.

Quote

The Residential Landlords Association urged the government to:

  • stop lenders preventing a landlord from renting to benefit claimants as a condition of their buy-to-let mortgage,

Fair enough, you say.

But of course, the scummy RLA just want more money and to reverse some very sensible policies:

Quote
  • align housing benefit with local rent levels
  • restore the right of tenants to choose to have the housing element of their benefit paid directly to their landlord

of course, if "align" means "reduce down to", then fine. But I'm sure they don't mean that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mrtickle said:

this is mentioned in the article.

Fair enough, you say.

But of course, the scummy RLA just want more money and to reverse some very sensible policies:

of course, if "align" means "reduce down to", then fine. But I'm sure they don't mean that.

 

Dont get me wrong, theres no way I for the IO BTL and the whole fuked Browning bank situation.

One, housing benefit needs linking to local wages.

Two, no migrant should have access to UK benefit or social housing.

Three, LA should provide a number of basic, cheap social housing that cannot be bought.

Four, benefits need to be contribution based and time limited.

Fix those and the whole fukup  becomes manageable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Locke said:

Simple. Abolish housing benefit.

Yes, but introduce basic income funded by a land value tax first. The historic theft of the commons should be compensated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Locke said:

Simple. Abolish housing benefit.

Not everyone has a job that pays enough to secure a mortgage or pay local rents.....how about reducing the cost of housing and rents so that no housing benefit then required.....I would not like to see 10% or more of the population living on the streets, meaning lots of angry and openly disenfranchised people, even prison provides warm bed, shelter and free food.....what do you suggest??

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Yes, but introduce basic income funded by a land value tax first. The historic theft of the commons should be compensated.

LVT is a  magic bullet bit of wonkery.

A few simple changes, to align rents to incomes.

One, get all IO BTL onto 10y commercial repayments mortgages. Force IO BTL providers to hold 100% of the loan will do it.

Two, align HB  to local median incomes.

Three, hand out social housing to people with jobs and local connections. Stop giving points for being dysfucntional.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, spyguy said:

LVT is a  magic bullet bit of wonkery.

A few simple changes, to align rents to incomes.

One, get all IO BTL onto 10y commercial repayments mortgages. Force IO BTL providers to hold 100% of the loan will do it.

Two, align HB  to local median incomes.

Three, hand out social housing to people with jobs and local connections. Stop giving points for being dysfucntional.

All you are proposing is minor tweaks to the same old means testing-based system which has so clearly failed. Means testing disincentivises standing on your own two feet, linking HB to local wages/rents discourages people who can't afford to live in an expensive area from moving to somewhere they can afford, prioritising subsidised housing for people with local connections disincentivises getting on your bike and going where the work is instead of sitting on your backside waiting for a handout.

Your proposals have all the same problems as what we already have, and it doesn't work.

LVT+basic income is a magic bullet because it actually addresses the root problems instead of taxing productivity to alleviate the symptoms of a broken system.

Edited by Dorkins
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

All you are proposing is minor tweaks to the same old means testing-based system which has so clearly failed. Means testing disincentivises standing on your own two feet, linking HB to local wages/rents discourages people who can't afford to live in an expensive area from moving to somewhere they can afford, prioritising subsidised housing for people with local connections disincentivises getting on your bike and going where the work is instead of sitting on your backside waiting for a handout.

Basically you've invented a recipe for Middlesbrough.

LVT+basic income is a magic bullet because it actually addresses the root problems instead of taxing productivity to alleviate the symptoms of a broken system.

Minor tweaks but with major outcomes.

Linking social housing an benefits to wages and not being dysfunctional is a receipt to *avoid* inventing Middlesbrough.

Currently, with the current system there is virtually *no* getting on bikes and going within the UK.

If someone in boro leaves to look for work in  London then they are classified as makign themselves homeless.

Strangely that does not happen when someone comes over from Mogadishu or Gdansk.

Equally under the current system there is limited mix of working and no working. You have places like Guildford and high rise estates in Woking

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Minor tweaks but with major outcomes.

Linking social housing an benefits to wages and not being dysfunctional is a receipt to *avoid* inventing Middlesbrough.

Currently, with the current system there is virtually *no* getting on bikes and going within the UK.

If someone in boro leaves to look for work in  London then they are classified as makign themselves homeless.

Strangely that does not happen when someone comes over from Mogadishu or Gdansk.

Equally under the current system there is limited mix of working and no working. You have places like Guildford and high rise estates in Woking

Your proposed system would be just as bad for discouraging getting on bikes. You're linking HB to local wages so nobody would have to leave an expensive area even if they can't afford it on their own wages. People living on their own dime have to make decisions about where they can afford to live, why shouldn't people on HB? You said the state housing would only be available to people with a local connection, so for poor people they would be idiots to get on their bikes and lose the local connection, better to just stay at home with mum, join the state housing list and wait for a handout. Same as now.

Like I say, you're just tweaking the current system. Some of your ideas like the local connection don't even seem to be tweaks, they are the current system:

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/homelessness/rules/local_connection

Edited by Dorkins
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with reducing HB to a single national level would be that someone in a city who is temporarily between jobs will quickly fall into debt and forced into moving out of town to somewhere remote where there is less chance of finding another job - this is kicking people when they are down.

What I think we should have is a time limit of maybe 2 years, so the HB tapers down, that way it still helps people in the above situation but does not fund unemployed people to live in central London for years on end on the taxpayers dime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sooner we get the half a million homeless and another 18 million in trailor parks like the Yanks the better.

Bang another 2 million in prison.

Sorted.

It won't be cheaper, it certainly won't be nicer, but I suspect that's the way we're going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Habeas Domus said:

They are more likely to be home all day and so more wear and tear on the house.

I've been at home all day (when not in hospital for cancer treatment) and the added wear and tear isn't noticeable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mrtickle said:

Experian and Equifax do not hold a "score" or "rating". This is a very common misconception which just won't die.

They only hold the RAW DATA, which the lenders query, then each LENDER uses their own algorithm and weightings to "score" the candidate.

This is conflated by Experian's website "products" such as those which give you an example score, ie "the sort of number which a lender might come up with based on the data", without making this clear enough.

The raw data is not "worthless", it's all the data in total, and it's worth whatever each lender wants to do with it.

The score I referenced is the product you are referring to. Which I think we've both stated isn't what it's presented as. People work towards a 999 Experian score and they are shocked when they can't get a mortgage. 

Ive a fair amount of experience in taking data raw data from people like, and including, Experian and I think its pretty ropey data... It's shocking the number of banks and government bodies who have ended up using Experian data as part of their own processes because they don't hold simple data about their own customers/clients for basic regulatory requirements 

Experian have built a model of harvesting data and linking it to people where its fairly likely they've linked the right default flag to the right person. The 'redress' in this system is that, if you get rejected for something, and find an error on your credit file, then you can ask them nicely to think about changing it. What hope have you got if that data used to populate a process buried in the decision making processes of a Bank, or the DWP, especially if the Experian data was only used once years ago to set up the dataset, but is still sitting there, so can't be updated as a result of complaints. 

A friend lost a potential sale of his business because the business report produced by Dun and Bradstreet was rubbish. They listed directors who didn't exist, which linked them to other businesses they had no relation to, it also still listed directors who had died 5 years previously and were removed from Companies House correctly at the time.

Edited by regprentice
Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me some of the highest educated, coming from the best families, with the best jobs, the most money, have the greatest addictions and can be just as easily tempted to do what they know is not right....we are all  easily tempted whoever we are, how much money we have got, or who  born to......just some find it easier to hide behind it until they no longer can, then it all comes out into the open for all to see. ;)

Edited by winkie
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/02/2020 at 20:36, spyguy said:

As Habeus says, more wear n tear.

The problem with social tenants edp. in the North is the LA tend to flip the really bad tenants to the private sector.

Also, when stuff goes wrong and or money blip, they don't have much money.

And... you are at the mercy on benefit policies and whether the tenant is found didflingthe DSS.

It used to be that the LA could claim back rent from LL if the tenant was scamming HB.

Tricky to generalise.

My experience was the very best and the very worse tenants were DSS. Working singles, couples and families were more middle ground  

Some DSS are respectful of their really nice homes in a great area near top schools and keep it immaculate reporting issues as appropriate for the benefit of landlord and tenant......others are just as entitled as the 118 landlords and sometimes withhold rent because a 50” tv sounds nice.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Habeas Domus said:

The problem with reducing HB to a single national level would be that someone in a city who is temporarily between jobs will quickly fall into debt and forced into moving out of town to somewhere remote where there is less chance of finding another job - this is kicking people when they are down.

What I think we should have is a time limit of maybe 2 years, so the HB tapers down, that way it still helps people in the above situation but does not fund unemployed people to live in central London for years on end on the taxpayers dime.

HB isn't like JSA to tide you over between jobs, you have to be basically penniless to get any at all. I don't think the state is doing poor people many favours by keeping them trapped on benefits in expensive parts of the country. Provide a basic income to everybody instead of the current menagerie of means tested benefits and let people make adult decisions about how to live their lives.

Edited by Dorkins
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 419 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.