No DSS?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    No DSS?

    I'll just post this without comment, for now.

    W & P Select committee inquiry into 'No DSS'.

    They want to hear from both tenants and landlords.

    https://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-letter-17-19/

    #2
    This seems to be gathering pace ahead of the inquiry.

    Zoopla have this morning announced that they will bar 'No DSS' advertising:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47567568

    Comment


      #3
      Oh, well, then we'll just go through the charade of showing properties to even more people we have no intention of letting to.

      Comment


        #4
        I've not had any DSS tenants since 2001....
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depart...United_Kingdom)

        Artful: In receipt of 6 benefits, thank you!
        I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
          I've not had any DSS tenants since 2001....
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depart...United_Kingdom)

          Artful: In receipt of 6 benefits, thank you!

          Had this discussion with a local estate agent via facebook a few weeks back where they were posting that they would consider DSS tenants for any property (as they had now across the board removed the 'NO DSS' entry on all adverts and contracts... Pointed out that one of the parties would need a time machine. They didnt get it to start with but with a bit of guidance (and the link you posted) they worked out just how out of date their wording was!

          We have had a number of tenants through our properties, and to date the best 2 families have both had benefits of some sorts. Dont see what the problem is (other than the council being a pain to deal with)

          Comment


            #6
            TBH it will make no difference, apart from removing it from mortgage terms and advertising.

            Landlords will still be able to have a 'no benefits' poilicy, they just won't be able to advertise it as such.
            ("Would Suit Working Person/Couple" is the easy way round that one, it gives your intention without actually barring anyone).

            Even if legislation was put in place to stop landlords having such a policy there would be no easy way of enforcing it.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
              I've not had any DSS tenants since 2001....
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depart...United_Kingdom)
              The DSS never paid housing benefits - I'd guess people are mixing it up with the DHSS.
              By the time the DSS was created, housing benefits had become the responsibility of local authorities.

              One issue that I have is that some of the same people who want to make it illegal to discriminate against people on benefits are the same people who support punitive benefits sanctions, universal credit and lower than stupid levels of housing allowance.
              Which are some of the main reasons landlords don't want tenants on benefits.

              If landlords could receive regular rent at reasonable levels direct from the state, tenants on benefits would be possibly more appealing than a working tenant.
              No one ever got made redundant from being poor.
              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by sam_cat View Post

                We have had a number of tenants through our properties, and to date the best 2 families have both had benefits of some sorts.
                In recent years, what has been your percentage of arrears of non benefit claimant tenants compared to those claiming benefits?

                Dont see what the problem is
                They are higher risk.*

                It doesn't have to be that way, as the man says;

                "If landlords could receive regular rent at reasonable levels direct from the state, tenants on benefits would be possibly more appealing than a working tenant."

                Unless that changes, it is an obvious business decision.

                *If anyone is really interested, have a sift through the MoJ possession statistics.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by boletus View Post
                  In recent years, what has been your percentage of arrears of non benefit claimant tenants compared to those claiming benefits?
                  Statistically insignificant numbers (3 properties) and difference in arrears, but the benefit claimants seem to look after the place better and are far more approachable. Although the most recent professional couple were a nightmare to deal with and left the place in a state, which may have jaded my opinion!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    My opinion. If the rent is at or below the property’s HB rate, it is reasonable to allow HB either partial or full to a viewing and consider their circumstances, against any other prospective tenants from a block or viewing. It could be discriminatory not to? It is not the LL concern to judge where the income comes from as such...but I would always still have concerns, will the HB reach me, are the tenant’s circumstances likely to change meaning benefits no longer received, with the HB rate increase in line with future rents if this is to a long term situation. Without a direct payment from the council from day 1 of the tenancy, which does not happen, I still would pick a working tenant on a permanent work contract if they came forward as they may be a safer financial option for me.

                    Where I think we should be albe to state no DSS or whatever term...is where the rent is higher than the HB max allowance for the property. That benefit is given on the basis that the person can not afford to pay their rent without it...so for example my £610 property has a HB rate of £520...meaning if they are on any HB the council has assessed that they cannot afford £520 without benefit support, so that must also then mean they cannot afford higher than £520 with support. So income i.e. ability to afford rent, no matter where it comes from is a reason to select/reject prospective tenants, so by advertising a property which is £90 above the HB rate as ‘no HB applicants due to rental price being higher than maximum HB allowance’, I don’t see how that is discrimination - it is just saving time by stopping people from applying and wasting everyone’s time when it is clear from the rent set that it is not affordable for a benefit tenant.

                    Isn’t that sensible? Shouldn’t whether it is discrimination to state ‘no DSS/HB’ in an advert simply depend on whether the property is affordable as an option for a benefit tenant in the first instance (I.e. rent set within the local HB rate or not).

                    Comment

                    Latest Activity

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X