Not All DSS Tenants Are Bad Tenants

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

    #31
    It doesn't require totalitarianism.

    Just some sensible planning policies and some investment in decent social housing.
    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


      #32
      "If you don't make stuff... there's no stuff."

      EM seems a strange chap, but he's spot on there! Only problem, those who make the stuff do like to get paid for making it. Bah!

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Lizbeth View Post
        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!)
        Well of all your posts I do agree with much of this one.

        Comment


          #34
          "We can magic up lots of "housing stock","

          Yup, we can build all over our green and pleasant land. But not when it's close to me please.....

          It may prove one of the genuine 'upsides' of Covid, that we now have a breatkthrough in home-working, so folk may be able to live further from the workplace, in less expensive places?

          Comment


            #35


            Several contributors make some good points. But I am asking why each DSS claimant cannot be looked at individually rather than having a blanket refusal to take anyone claiming benefits. If a prospective tenant has excellent references, is willing to pay more than one month rent in advance, has a part time job where the wage earned is only lower than their true earning potential because they have young kids, therefore is entitled to benefits, and has a reputable guarantor, what would be the reason to reject this prospective tenant?

            Comment


              #36
              Maybe their mortgage or landlords insurance doesn't allow them to rent to tenants receiving housing benefit.

              Comment


                #37
                My buildings insurance premiums increase when tenants are housing benefit recipients. (Not a major consideration, though.)
                There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Like some others on this thread I look at each potential tenant individually. My current tenant was on benefits but had a solid guarantor. She has been excellent - a model tenant. I once had a tenant who was working but lost their job very quickly, went onto benefits, paid me nothing and went on holidays to Spain instead. Take people as you find them and hear their stories...
                  Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                    Like some others on this thread I look at each potential tenant individually. My current tenant was on benefits but had a solid guarantor. She has been excellent - a model tenant. I once had a tenant who was working but lost their job very quickly, went onto benefits, paid me nothing and went on holidays to Spain instead. Take people as you find them and hear their stories...
                    I am very pleased that some landlords don’t have a blanket refusal of benefit claimants without looking at each as the individuals that they are.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK View Post
                      I am very pleased that some landlords don’t have a blanket refusal of benefit claimants.
                      If they did then arguably Housing Benefit wouldn't exist and this discussion would never have arisen in the first place.
                      There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK View Post

                        Such a shame that many landlords are discriminating against 50% of the population.
                        Discrimination is not necessarily illegal: It's only when it's against someone with the defined protected characteristics.

                        Most employers when hiring discriminate in favour of those with an excellent employment record, appropriate skills, appropriate qualifications, great soft-skills etc etc etc .. Entirely legal (if those are the only reasons..). Similarly when selecting tenants I discriminate in favour of those whose references (which I check direct with agency/landlords...) are good, a history of looking after property & evidence they can afford the rent: AFAIK entirely legal.

                        It's more than 50% btw after Rishi's bungs...
                        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


                          #42
                          Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK View Post

                          Several contributors make some good points. But I am asking why each DSS claimant cannot be looked at individually rather than having a blanket refusal to take anyone claiming benefits. If a prospective tenant has excellent references, is willing to pay more than one month rent in advance, has a part time job where the wage earned is only lower than their true earning potential because they have young kids, therefore is entitled to benefits, and has a reputable guarantor, what would be the reason to reject this prospective tenant?
                          The above illustrates exactly the kind of thing some and the political air-heads don't understand. --

                          a) There is no blanket refusal - read the posts
                          b) References don't matter when rent is not paid AND the legal structure makes it impossible to do anything about that (so you should be fighting for removal of those constraints not to add to them)
                          c) You can't receive more than a month of rent in advance without a heap of problems (created by law-makers) and it doesn't help a jot - especially if it's paid in the fixed term and the tenancy is now periodic
                          d) Guarantor's don't generally help at all

                          So yes the tenant is rejected (who otherwise would not be rejected) precisely because of the way the law is set.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            And the more protection that government gives tenants by making it harder for landlords to evict them (e.g removal of no-fault eviction), the more difficult it is likely to be for them to rent anywhere in the first place. Such measures are well-intentioned, but problematic.
                            There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              AndrewDod,

                              I believe the same laws apply whether or not the applicant is receiving housing benefit.

                              I can see why it might be difficult to prove that refusing people who receive housing benefit, regardless of their individual circumstances, is discrimination. If there’s a valid reason, which is based on the individual’s circumstances and not on stereotyping then it’s not discrimination. However, when I see No Housing Benefit Applicants I am not convinced that the unjust or prejudicial treatment of a category, discrimination, isn’t taking place by some landlords. I think this may also breach the Equality Act. So there may well be issues for landlords with the way the law works for them which would apply whether or not their tenant is receiving housing benefit. The point I am making is I have seen unjust practises being afforded to people who receive housing benefit, no doubt not by all landlords, but by some. I’m simply trying to encourage all landlords to look at individual cases.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Let's make it simple

                                Tenant 1 has 30K of cash in the bank, works in a decent job, has a life that will be hurt if they damage their reputation.

                                Tenant 2 does not have 30K in the bank, does not work, and will not be further detrimented by getting a few CCJs

                                Both appear to be lovely people. Landlord is prepared to take a chance on T2.

                                A) In a system where contracts are important and the law operates to assist people to make mutually beneficial contracts with each other.

                                6 months in T2 stops paying rent. 2 months later tenant is gone. L would have been prepared to take the chance because his loss is minimal. The difference in risk between T1 and T2 is minimal.

                                B) In a system where contracts are totally unimportant and the law does not operates to assist people to make mutually beneficial contracts with each other.

                                6 months in T2 stops paying rent. L spends 18 months trying to get rid of T2, and the cost to him is 20K in lost rent and legal expenses. That is not recoverable in any way.

                                6 months in T1 stops paying rent. L might still be faced with a hassle but will sue T1 - T1 will be faced with severe damages both financial and otherwise.

                                Suddenly that risk on T2 is not worth taking.

                                You need to blame the right people and the correct causes.

                                Not sure why several million people need to be receiving Housing benefit by the way, while our fruit is picked by Romanians and our Hotel toilets by Poles whilst our sweet little UK born kids stay at home - being too weak in the knees and too sensitive by far to do these jobs. The current fruit picking saga tells you everything you need to know about the sick state of our country and the ideation of a subset of the population.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X