Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

"No DSS" Rental Bans Ruled Unlawful


Recommended Posts

Err, how?

The LHA and deposit requirements are enough to prevent most DSS claimants from the PRS.

Theres nothing wrong with DSS claims, providing you are very very very careful.

Most LL operating around the LFA limits tend to be slumlords.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other side of the coin is that with the government splurging so much money and local councils being in serious financial trouble they may finally make the link that if they drop the level of payments to those on the welfare that rental prices drop accordingly ??? .... Sorry I crack myself up sometimes! Common sense and government, what was I thinking? 

I think @spyguy is right the landlord will just be exceptionally careful of their wording if they chose to not take on DSS claimants. Even if this does turn out to be a prop, historical crashes have occurred despite such props. I think now is the time to sit back and watch this unwind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Blink said:

The government provides further support to hyper inflate the lettings market by ruling it discriminatory to ban those claiming DSS.

I actually think this is a good idea. It will freak LLs in high demand areas out that they have to accept housing benefit claimants. 

Obviously depends what the punishment is for breeching this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spyguy said:

The LHA and deposit requirements are enough to prevent most DSS claimants from the PRS.

Forgive my ignorance, but can't claimants top up their DSS? Say if they had a cheeky cash in hand job?

Do landlords actually have any way of knowing for sure who is on DSS?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it is inflationary. Most BTL mortgages didn't allow for DSS claimants up until recently as it was presumed to be higher risk. That perceived risk is now transferred to the landlord who can't legally discriminate against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sammersmith said:

Work references?

Sorry, I meant within the context of these non-discrimination laws, which would presumably make a demand for references illegal.

e.g. I know previously the payment would be made directly to the LL

Edited by Locke
Link to post
Share on other sites

Outrageous.
Can we now expect the hard pressed BTL'ers to have to allow people with dogs to rent? Will Irish and Black People now be forced upon them?

I expect they will also be made to rent their BTL property to those who cook with spices..._

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Locke said:

Sorry, I meant within the context of these non-discrimination laws, which would presumably make a demand for references illegal.

e.g. I know previously the payment would be made directly to the LL

This is where it will get interesting. 

LA is still required to check the rent is 'affordable', based on a % of earnings. Therefore, they will know how much the prospective tenant earns and who pays them. They could target rent just above this threshold instead of outright discrimination on the tenant's source of income.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Clarky Cat said:

I'm not sure it is inflationary. Most BTL mortgages didn't allow for DSS claimants up until recently as it was presumed to be higher risk. That perceived risk is now transferred to the landlord who can't legally discriminate against them.

I think the risk of BTL esp IO BTL is being revised up n up.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Locke said:

Forgive my ignorance, but can't claimants top up their DSS? Say if they had a cheeky cash in hand job?

Do landlords actually have any way of knowing for sure who is on DSS?

Well .... thats even riskier.

IIRc LL on on the hook if the claimants has been making false claims i.e has to pay back HB.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sammersmith said:

This is where it will get interesting. 

LA is still required to check the rent is 'affordable', based on a % of earnings. Therefore, they will know how much the prospective tenant earns and who pays them. They could target rent just above this threshold instead of outright discrimination on the tenant's source of income.  

Yet another ill-conceived scheme then. 

What is LA btw?

2 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Well .... thats even riskier.

IIRc LL on on the hook if the claimants has been making false claims i.e has to pay back HB.

 

Really? That's hysterical! What kind of an absolute moron would go into landlording these days?

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

LA = local authority.

 

16 minutes ago, Locke said:

What is LA btw?

 

I actually meant `Letting Agent` in this context, as they require proof of 'earnings' and apply an affordability calculation on that. But yes the Local Authority would also have an affordability check to determine if the property is affordable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Locke said:

Yet another ill-conceived scheme then. 

What is LA btw?

Really? That's hysterical! What kind of an absolute moron would go into landlording these days?

Its not quite the case... 

If the landlord is deemed to being the person at fault for the overpayment they claim off the landlord. If the tenant is at fault then they go after the tenant. If the council is incompetent they leave it. 

Examples given in that link were when a tenant had left the property for a period greater than a year. HB continued to be paid to the landlord. Argument being the landlord should have reasonably known his or her property was empty and stopped the payments. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, sammersmith said:

I actually meant `Letting Agent` in this context, as they require proof of 'earnings' and apply an affordability calculation on that. But yes the Local Authority would also have an affordability check to determine if the property is affordable. 

Ok, so let's say the landlord is not using a letting agent. 

He could probably discover what the DSS rates are in the area and price above that, fine.

But what if an entrepreneurial DSS recipient takes their DSS and adds in some of their own income which they are not reporting to the good folk at HMRC or the bennies Bureau? 

If the landlord can demand employment references, then they are discriminating de facto against DSS recipients. In fact, if a letting agent demands employment evidence, this would also be discriminatory, right?

I think you would have to start interviewing potential tenants, which is a major headache.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Locke said:

Ok, so let's say the landlord is not using a letting agent. 

He could probably discover what the DSS rates are in the area and price above that, fine.

But what if an entrepreneurial DSS recipient takes their DSS and adds in some of their own income which they are not reporting to the good folk at HMRC or the bennies Bureau? 

If the landlord can demand employment references, then they are discriminating de facto against DSS recipients. In fact, if a letting agent demands employment evidence, this would also be discriminatory, right?

I think you would have to start interviewing potential tenants, which is a major headache.

Kind of. 

The landlord or letting agent is still allowed, and i believe required, to see proof of earnings to judge if the tenant can afford the property. This may be in the form of a reference from the employer stating their salary, payslips, or bank statements showing cash going in monthly. 

All agents i've had the displeasure of dealing with want 3 months payslips and employee references, often backed up by a telephone interview with my line manager. I think this was actually a separate referencing company doing this on the agents behalf in most cases. 

Whether this is discriminating is a matter of debate. Agents and landlords would argue that they need proof of income, whereas it's clear they will put a preference towards working tenants for stability if they have the choice. How you prove this will be the issue.  

This reminds me of a company i submitted my CV to a couple of years back. They stated that the CV must not contain information about my gender or ethnicity, however it obviously had to include my name. Most people would determine my gender from my name and also have a pretty decent chance at being sure of my ethnicity from this too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DiggerUK said:

Outrageous.
Can we now expect the hard pressed BTL'ers to have to allow people with dogs to rent? Will Irish and Black People now be forced upon them?

I expect they will also be made to rent their BTL property to those who cook with spices..._

They can advertise for Tenants that only eat Bread and Dripping

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Judgement is interesting because it doesn't rule against DSS recipients per se, but see's the majority of DSS recipients being female and/or disabled - so discriminating against DSS is secondary discrimination against women and the disabled (I'll let others discuss if they agree with it)

My initial guess is that LL's could work around this by demanding proof of stable income (6 - 12 months of regular payments, irrespective of employer or State). If they decline contractors and freelancers as well as DSS then I guess it would stand.  Anything that reduces the pool of stable tenants pushes rents down.

The consequence being a cohort of irregular income tenants, including the most disadvantaged being held to the most unscrupulous of LL's.  Giving Housing Associations to take over such lettings at a fraction of the LL's cost would be a fair sanction.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I read it the ruling just says no blanket bans, not that landlords have to rent to someone on DSS.

So they can’t say “no DSS” any more but they’re still free to choose whoever they want to rent to based on whatever arbitrary criteria they come up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say make "No Pets" unlawful too. Such a ban disproportionately affects those with mental health issues, and therefore discriminatory against those with a disability.

The depressed.need their three dogs, iguana, and two cats.

Perhaps an online petition is in order?

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.

  • 417 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.