Not All DSS Tenants Are Bad Tenants

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

    #16
    Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK View Post

    Such a shame that many landlords are discriminating against 50% of the population.
    Not the case at all , it is nothing like 50% of the PRS on benefits . Regardless, I reject at least 50% of rental applicants for not reaching the criteria required to live in my biggest assets. Don't blame the landlords for protecting themselves, blame Maggie.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by doobrey View Post

      Not at all. It was an analogy.

      My point was that businesses assess risk, and price (or choose whether to offer) their services according to that assessment.

      btw, DSS hasn't existed since 2001.
      I use the term DSS because I saw it used on this forum, You’re right to point out that benefits come with a number of titles, and not DSS. Businesses certainly should assess risk, it’s very prudent to do so, but I don’t know what research and evidence is being used to determine that all DSS tenants are a risk. I accept that the way the Government chose to release those payments in arrears may be an issue, but then as a group of landlords perhaps this is something you could help to change. Beyond that I cannot see what makes people claiming benefits any more of a risk that people who are not claiming benefits. I’m just someone who is desperately trying to understand why our Government is paying housing benefits to people who cannot afford to pay the full cost of private rentals but then landlords providing those private rentals won’t allow them to rent their properties. It seems a crazy system to me and I really want to understand.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK
        I accept that the way the Government chose to release those payments in arrears may be an issue... Beyond that I cannot see what makes people claiming benefits any more of a risk that people who are not claiming benefits.
        This reads to me like "I can see where the risk is... but beyond that I cannot see where the risk is."


        Post #2 seems a fairly clear summary of some of the main issues.


        Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK
        It seems a crazy system to me
        Many would agree, landlords included. Maybe take it up with your MP, or the DWP?
        There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by doobrey View Post

          This reads to me like "I can see where the risk is... but beyond that I cannot see where the risk is."


          Post #2 seems a fairly clear summary of some of the main issues.




          Many would agree, landlords included. Maybe take it up with your MP, or the DWP?
          The payment in arrears does seem to be an issue and certainly needs to be changed. However there are DSS claimants who could show that this may not be a problem in their individual case. So it seems perfectly reasonable to me to take each individual case into consideration rather than a blanket refusal of all DSS claimants. As far as lobbying MPs is concerned, this would carry more weight if landlords were to join together to put a case to the government to review the areas they find difficult to work with. I can understand an issue that needs to be reviewed which may cause issues for some claimants. I can’t understand why each DSS claimant is not looked at as an individual applicant.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK View Post
            As far as lobbying MPs is concerned, this would carry more weight if landlords were to join together to put a case to the government.
            I think that is called the National Landlords Association.
            There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

            Comment


              #21
              "Sadly, in my opinion, this demonstrates some of the points I wish to highlight. There is a suggestion that people who are not claiming benefit or never irresponsible. I think we all know that is very far from the truth. There’s also a hint that some DSS claimants often have ‘more urgent expenses’. I am very concerned about that line and feel it needs explanation. Why would DSS claimants often have ‘more urgent expenses’ that people who are not claiming benefits don’t have?""

              I was thinking, in terms of 'more urgent expenses' of owing money, say, to payday loan companies (or, worse, criminal loan sharks) or being badly in hock to the ripoff hire-purchase companies that charge a fortune for buying eg washing machines on what used to be called the 'never never'.....faced, say, with a choice of a loan shark turning up at your door (or bailiffs), or having your washing machine seized by the hire purchase company, you might think that not paying next month's rent (or last month's!) is preferable. Most tenants know that eviction is never a simple process, and in that respect an unpaid landlord is less of a threat than a bailiff/debt collector etc etc. They not want to not pay their rent, but not paying rent may be their easiest option under such very difficult circumstances.

              Then, again, like it or not, I think one has to face the fact that those who live 'permanently' on UC are either going to have long term physical health problems, or, worse, mental health ones. Those who live permanently on benefits are, almost by definition, likely to be incapable of ordering and sorting their own lives, and managing their money/income responsibility etc may well be simply beyond them. I do not blame, in the slightest, those whom society has left behind or cast aside, (though, yes, some I'm sure are 'bad eggs' just as we find 'bad eggs' in non-claimants!), because they are society's victims (and, grimly, all too often second/third/fourth generation victims...).

              There is, surely, a significant difference between those who are 'doomed' to be permanent benefits claimants, and those who are only temporary. I expect, grimly, we shall be seeing a lot more of the latter thanks to Covid unemployment, but there must surely be every expectation that, however long it takes, the economy will pick up again (as it did after 2008), and that temporary unemployment will decline, and those currently forced onto UC by covid will rebound into non-dependent employment again.

              Even single mothers (and there's a separate debate about why the fathers of single mothers' children are not paying for their children's housing!) can expect, once their children have left home, to be back in full-time employment again, and off benefits (and yes, I appreciate that SAHMs do suffer from loss of promotion etc in their interrupted careers - I certainly did!)

              Finally, yes, of course employed tenants can be bad tenants and non-payers etc. And the bad-eggs among them know perfectly well how hard it is to be evicted, and what damage they can do to a property, etc etc.

              Comment


                #22
                Ironically, perhaps, when it comes to risk assessment, maybe it could be argued by landlords that a prospective tenant who is a long-term benefits claimant is more likely to be a bigger risk than someone just coming on to UC????? (As the former is likely to have entrenched 'life problems' and the latter only 'temporary misfortune'....)

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK View Post
                  I can’t understand why each DSS claimant is not looked at as an individual applicant.
                  They are. And then they are rapidly rejected as individual applicants for the very reasons stated here (which you appear to want to deliberately misunderstand).

                  If the same type of rules would apply to shopping - "shoplifting will not be prosecuted, shops are not permitted to stop shoplifters, and known shoplifters are not to be prevented from entering" and if the courts did process the rare case where prosecution was permitted with a 3 year delay....

                  ... and the cost to a shop of admitting random shoppers was around £3K per "shopping" trip

                  then the shopping experience (for decent shoppers) would be the same as that experienced by decent renters who do not have 30K in the bank and who have plenty to lose if they steal.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    in the end, doesn't the whole issue boil down to the grim fact that the UK cannot adequately house its (ever growing) population? If housing stock were in excess to housing need, then landlords (if they still existed!) could not afford to be that picky about tenants. If, right now, they can afford to reject DSS tenants it's because they know they can let to a queue of non-DSS tenants.

                    Market forces, dear boy, market forces, as Sir Humphrey probably said......

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Lizbeth View Post
                      "Sadly, in my opinion, this demonstrates some of the points I wish to highlight. There is a suggestion that people who are not claiming benefit or never irresponsible.
                      That.. again... is missing the point entirely.

                      The point ... again... is what one can do about it if they are irresponsible (or are thieves).

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK View Post
                        Presumably you apply this same logic to applicants who have a job and may be sanctioned, regardless of their conduct, and lose part of their wage due to short time working being imposed by their employer, or lose their entire wage due to redundancy. If you don’t apply this same logic to all applicants when they apply, regardless of their source of income, then I’d be interested to know why not.
                        I do apply similar logic - I prefer couples who are both employed for the reasons you outline.

                        And the current pandemic shows how vulnerable people are to life-changing upheaval for which they are in no way responsible and cannot control.

                        For most landlords it's a question of which of the people who want to rent this property is the most likely to pay their rent regularly and routinely and least likely to introduce stress into my business.
                        And being a recipient of housing benefit or universal credit is a negative, while being employed for some months is a positive.

                        I have a number of relatives who live supported entirely or in part on benefits, so there is no question in my mind that there is anything wrong with recipients of benefits - but my experience, second hand, via them, is that the system doesn't support them properly and that causes issues from the people they transact with.
                        I've lent them money to pay their rent, for example - and I know they'd rather have done almost anything rather than ask.

                        I've never (as far as I can recall) had someone give me notice because they'd lost their job - a few years ago a single mother gave noticed when their maternity leave ended and they couldn't go back to work.


                        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


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Lizbeth View Post
                          If housing stock were in excess to housing need, then landlords (if they still existed!) could not afford to be that picky about tenants. If, right now, they can afford to reject DSS tenants it's because they know they can let to a queue of non-DSS tenants.
                          Ahhh... let's have that utopia that was Soviet Russia or North Korea. We can magic up lots of "housing stock", have some gestapo officer armed with a gun managing it, and the world will be good. They will do your shopping too at the same time. And your fruit picking while the DSS doles out it's stuff. Because the world works that way. And we will all live forever, cared for by Doctors who are happy to work for nothing, using drugs and devices that somehow also magically appear. And the gestapo will collect kids from schools to go into forced ballet training and we will all dance as the victims hand from the trees.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Isn't yet another negative against DSS tenants a point raised in another thread about evicting a DSS tenant for non-payment of rent, and the comment was that the Housing Officer specifically told the landlord that he'd have to go all the way to bailiffs before his tenants were rehoused.

                            This shows, doesn't it, that landlords are up against the state itself! Again, because of the chronic shortage of housing stock, local authorities are desperate NOT to have to rehouse a DSS claimant/tenant! Why should an LA care tuppance about a private landlord, if it means one of their all-too-many homeless clients can retain an (unpaid for) roof over their heads.

                            Still looking at the wider picture, it's all very well the government wanting to discintentivise BTL, eg by ruinous 2nd home SDLT, getting rid of claiming mortgage interest against rental income etc, in order to make more housing stock available to buyers, and reduce renting overall in the UK. This may be a laudable aim, BUT, where does that leave those citizens who have no more chance of buying a house/flat of their own however ''cheap' they are (once the 'profiteering' BTL sector is crushed!!!!), eg, DSS claimants.

                            If the government deters the BTL sector, to 'free up' stock for buyers, who will house the DSS claimants? Because building council flats and houses isn't something the government is keen on either!

                            I wonder if the government has actually ever consider incentivising BTL landlords to favour DSS tenants, eg, by getting rid of second home SDLT if the BTL is used exclusively for DSS tenants, or allowing BTL landlords to deduct mortgage interest against gross rental income etc. (Not to mention issuing some kind of government 'bond' to landlords to cover unpaid rent!)

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
                              ...doctors who are happy to work for nothing, using drugs and devices that somehow also magically appear.
                              "If you don't make stuff... there's no stuff."
                              - Elon Musk, 2020
                              There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Just as a matter of (depressing) interest, I wonder by how much housing demand is increased by divorced families now? Given that something like a third of marriages now end in divorce, one might assume that that third of the population has doubled its housing need.

                                Then, of course, we have al the oldies like me, couples and old folk occupying family-sized homes even though they are now empty nesters...

                                Plus, of course, the ever tricky issue of open borders....and booming birth rates...and Nimby anti-house-buillders, etc ec.

                                And holiday home owners of course too....(etc etc)

                                I do wonder, sometimes, whether other European countries are as useless at housing their population adequeately as the UK seems endemically to be.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X