Not All DSS Tenants Are Bad Tenants

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

    #46
    Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK View Post
    I believe these same laws apply whether or not the applicant is receiving housing benefit.
    They do.

    They were quoted in response to your question as to why references, advance rent and a guarantor do not negate any perceived increased risk pertaining to a particular tenant.


    Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK View Post
    I can see why it might be difficult to prove that refusing people who receive housing benefit, regardless of their individual circumstances, is discrimination
    It is discrimination. That is not in dispute. It is not illegal*. See post #7. See post #41.

    * Historically, although there have been cases where it has been legally challenged on the basis that certain groups are more likely to be in receipt of benefits, and if illegal to discriminate against those groups then by extension it becomes illegal to discriminate against benefit recipients.
    There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

    Comment


      #47
      I wouldn’t have been so bold as to suggest this is always discrimination. However, if you say it is, then I think we need to consider whether or not this ‘discrimination’ is illegal, at least in some cases. A legal case last year saw a single mother win compensation for discrimination from a lettings agency that refused to consider her as a tenant because she was on benefits.

      She argued that the restriction indirectly discriminated against women, especially single women, because they are proportionately more likely to be claiming housing benefit than single men, according to official figures.

      Comment


        #48
        Yes, that is what I was referring to.
        There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

        Comment


          #49
          Originally posted by doobrey View Post




          It is discrimination. That is not in dispute. It is not illegal*. See post #7. See post #41.

          * Historically, although there have been cases where it has been legally challenged on the basis that certain groups are more likely to be in receipt of benefits, and if illegal to discriminate against those groups then by extension it becomes illegal to discriminate against benefit recipients.
          You say it is discrimination, and it is illegal discrimination. Rather shocking.

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK View Post
            refusing people who receive housing benefit, regardless of their individual circumstances
            ...is pretty much the definition of discrimination. I don't see anyone disputing that here.


            Originally posted by SOME_DSS_R_OK View Post
            You say it is discrimination, and it is illegal discrimination
            I certainly didn't say that it was illegal. I suggested - albeit with a caveat - the opposite.
            There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

            Comment


              #51
              Anyone remember when being thought of as discriminating was a compliment?

              Comment


                #52
                The case referred to in the above posts is worth reading about for those who are interested. To me it seems to leave a lot of unresolved questions.

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

                "Ms Staples offered to pay six months' rent up-front, and then 12 months' after an offer of a loan from her father, but the letting agent kept saying the landlord's insurance did not cover tenants on benefits."

                She said: "After a while, talking to this one particular estate agent, I just said; 'Nothing I say is going to make any difference is it?' And he said, 'No.'"
                The prospective tenant/Shelter got an out-of court settlement.

                So if this is accepted as a precedent I could imagine conversations such as this:

                Prospective tenant: "I would like to rent your house please. I am in receipt of housing benefit."
                Prospective landlord: "I'm really sorry, I would like to but my bank prohibits it. There is a clause in the mortgage agreement. The house could be repossessed."
                Prospective tenant: "If you refuse it is unlawful indirect discrimination and I will sue you."
                Landlord: "Also my insurance company prohibits it. If the house burned down there would be no insurance payout and I may be bankrupted."
                Prospective tenant: "If you refuse it is unlawful indirect discrimination and I will sue you."
                Landlord: "Oh dear."

                Insurance arrangements could be changed if it came down it (although I am not sure that LL should necessarily be forced into a position where they had to do so), but mortgage... not so much.

                ---

                As a thought experiment I wonder whether, if the prospective tenant was an able-bodied man, he could still in that scenario claim unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act because a 'no HB' policy overwhelming impacts women and disabled people.
                There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

                Comment


                  #53
                  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 without looking at each as the individuals that they are.
                  Seems you have identified a very lucrative business opportunity to set yourself up as a landlord offering properties to these wonderful people who apparently form half the population.
                  Good luck with that.

                  Comment


                    #54
                    The case didn't set a precedent, because it was never tried.

                    Banks and insurance companies are being pressed to remove the clauses that stop landlord's renting to people on benefits, if only on the basis that so many people receive benefits that they're unworkable.

                    The fundamental problem remains that people confuse landlords with the state.
                    Because government after government has reduced the stock of social housing, people who can't afford to rent in the private sector are being forced to.
                    Benefit levels are set so that only the worst of the housing stock is affordable as a matter of policy.
                    So the choice is limited or (I'd imagine in large cities) zero.

                    If a landlord has a number of potential tenants, it would be irrational not to select the one they think is most likely to pay rent regularly.
                    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


                      #55
                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                      The fundamental problem remains that people confuse landlords with the state.
                      I bought and renovated a house some time ago, which had been vacant and boarded up. Some local people walked past one day while I was there and I overheard one of them say that 'it's about time they sorted out that house'. It made me wonder who "they" referred to. I presume it meant "The Establishment".
                      There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

                      Comment


                        #56
                        "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."

                        I think the intention of such legislation is to deter private landlords from operating in the first place! (Because, as so many of the posts on this thread are vividly illustrating, it become punitively expensive to regain vacant possession.) This deterrence is also visible in the removal of claiming mortgage interest against tax, the higher SDLT etc etc.

                        It's clear the government don't want BTL to exist at all, because they want house prices to lower (by reducing competition between owner-buyers and BTL buyers) so more people can afford to buy them.

                        Yet at the same time, with the kind of blind/hypocritical logic of governments, the state continues to rely on the private sector to substitute for council housing.

                        So when eviction becomes 'impossible' (or, at least, even more punitively costly), and profit margins/yields are reduced to zilch for private BTL landlords, and all the LL quit the field, who, then, is going to house the benefits claimants? Is the government going to buy all the former private BTl properties from the quitting private landlords, and turn them back into state owned (hey, council!) housing? Or will the houses be bought by all the first time buyers that are 'locked out' of the market? And then what happens to the DSS wannabe tenants??

                        Basically, by 'overprotecting' tenants from eviction, the government simply wants to 'dump' the problem of the UK's chronic inability to house its own population on the private LL.

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

                          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
                          Tenant 3 has £12k of cash in the bank, works in a decent job (lets say earning £30k a year), has a life that will be hurt if they damage their reputation. This tenant has a partner and 3 children.

                          This tenant could easily be in receipt of Housing Benefit.

                          Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
                          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 byPoles 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.
                          Probably because wages v cost of living (including rent) is disproportionate. Oh and Housing Benefit is not an unemployment benefit and it's both a working age and pension age benefit. Plenty of working age people and retired pensioners living on the breadline or under it.

                          Poverty is a real thing, it's not just something that is made up. You seem to have this mindset that poverty doesn't exist and anybody not earning enough to survive are lazy. 1.6m people in UK used food banks last year (about 2.4% of the population) and 1 in 7 people who use a food bank are employed.

                          https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ed-kingdom-uk/
                          https://www.trusselltrust.org/2019/1...at-food-banks/

                          There are many people working full time who have to claim Housing Benefit, Tax Credits or Universal Credit to be able to pay their rent and survive.

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Originally posted by Welshie View Post
                            Poverty is a real thing, it's not just something that is made up. You seem to have this mindset that poverty doesn't exist and anybody not earning enough to survive are lazy. 1.6m people in UK used food banks last year (about 2.4% of the population) and 1 in 7 people who use a food bank are employed.
                            Certainly poverty is a real thing. Try telling the 99% of people on earth that are poorer living a mud hut with flies that your 1% top of the world person on 30K, with a TV and a car is in poverty. They would likely vomit in disgust and anger.

                            The starting salary for a Junior doctor in this country is £27,000 (after receiving no salary for the 5 years before that).

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

                              Certainly poverty is a real thing. Try telling the 99% of people on earth that are poorer living a mud hut with flies that your 1% top of the world person on 30K, with a TV and a car is in poverty. They would likely vomit in disgust and anger.

                              The starting salary for a Junior doctor in this country is £27,000 (after receiving no salary for the 5 years before that).
                              Hmmm where did I say that example was poverty stricken. If you're going to chat bs, at least don't put words in my mouth. My example was showing that your blinkered, daily mail reader view of people on Housing Benefit being unemployed and lazy is off the mark completely.

                              Many NHS staff, nurses etc claim Housing Benefit. They work full time. They should be paid a wage that shouldn't require them to claim. But unfortunately that's not the case. Based on your extreme, far right views, you'd likely think they are lazy. That's your view right?

                              You have absolutely no idea of poverty. You probably think poverty is not being able to have a second holiday in a year. I've seen a lot of your extremely passive aggressive posts that pretty much go along the lines of the world owes you everything and everyone is out to get you.

                              Every country has poverty, which is something that shouldn't happen. But you have this unsual assumption that the UK can't have people in poverty. What was it you said, not sure why people claim HB, they should just find work and stop being lazy.

                              Put down the daily mail, stop with the poor rhetoric and see that there is extreme poverty in this country.

                              Comment


                                #60
                                You probably think homelessness in the UK is a myth or the person is just lazy.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X