"No HB/LHA/DSS tenants"

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

    "No HB/LHA/DSS tenants"

    In case you are unaware, the new Disability Discrimination Act forbids any landlord or agent to advertise "No DSS" as this could discriminate against anybody who claims any kind of benefit, not just housing benefit.

    Apart from the fact the "DSS" has not existed for some time but remains in the public domain as a euphemism for "Housing Benefit", the latter should be the only term used if you don't want to accept tenants who are claiming housing benefit - because that is exactly what you are trying to avoid. To continue using "No DSS" will make you open to being prosecuted under the DDA 2005 as you are protentially discriminating against all benefit claimants! Beware!
    The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

    #2
    Thanks Paul.

    It is good to see a legally valid reason for stamping out this obsolete requirement that may prevent a potentially good tenant on benefits, other than housing benefit, from responding to an advertisement in private sector housing.

    Even with the best of Housing Benefit applicants there can be a difference between what the Housing Benefit office are prepared to pay the tenant and the actual market rent (e.g. there may be more rooms at the property than deemed necessary for the tenant or his family)

    Would it be OK to state "All prospective tenants will be expected to provide references and satisfy the financial requirements of an independent tenant verification service"

    Too many words for an advert eh?

    How about a new trade acronym RAGVET applies?

    References And Guarantors (in some circumstances) plus Vetting
    Vic - wicked landlord
    Any advice or suggestions given in my posts are intended for guidance only and not a substitute for completing full searches on this forum, having regard to the advice of others, or seeking appropriate professional opinion.
    Without Plain English Codes of Practice and easy to complete Prescribed Forms the current law is too complex and is thus neither fair to good tenants nor good landlords.

    Comment


      #3
      I have looked through the DDA 2005 and cannot find a reference to this. Can you quote the section etc of where this info is held?

      Reason i ask is my agent still places ALL his adverts "No DSS"

      Comment


        #4
        No Dss?

        I too would like to know which section covers this. You are not discriminating against people because they are disabled, they are being treated the same as able-bodied benefit claimants.



        This is advice only. Always consult a solicitor if in doubt.

        Comment


          #5
          Has it escaped everyone's attention that if people are on Disability Benefit, or indeed benefit of any kind, then the liklihood is they are also on Housing Benefit ???

          Again, I come back to the point that that all tenants, whether claiming HB or working, should be treated equally and on individual merit and LL's should be equally as vigilant vetting working tenants as those claiming Benefits ... of any kind.

          It does make me wonder what the Rent Office and HB is up to though - I was renting a private 2 bed flat £595 pcm for which HB would only pay £98.16 pw.

          I'm now renting a 1 x bed Housing Association property at £101.22 pw and HB pay all of it ...

          So according to them, they will pay more for a 1-bed than a 2-bed which means the Rent Office assessed the market Rent for a 2 bed LOWER than the rent for a 1 x bed .. Their logic defies me .....
          Any information or opinion given in this post is based only on my personal experience, what I have learned from this, other boards and elsewhere. It is not to be relied on. Definitive advice is only available from a Solicitor or other appropriately qualified person. E&OE

          Comment


            #6
            Pippay, I agree with what you say. As for your own experience, remember that the assessment is based on the claimant's needs, so they would pay more for a single person with a child in a 2-bed than for a single person in the same place, because they would say a single person doesn't need two beds.

            Comment


              #7
              And that Pippay is where it gets silly - expecting claimants to find a property where there is no excess over their needs.
              One good example was a couple I let to a few years ago who had married then recently and who took on a two bedroomed house with the full expectation that they would have a child before too long. Their HB was restricted because they were "over accommodated" and the additional bedroom was surplus to their needs as a married couple on the basis they only needed one bedroom.

              Immediately the baby was born, the restriction was lifted because the baby was "entitled" to the second bedroom. Presumably has they subsequently lost the baby, the restriction would have been brought in again. Do Rent officers think that where a childless couple rent a two bedroomed house that they never have any relatives who might stay, or a friend perhaps. This restiction should only apply where there are two or more "excess" bedrooms over the needs of the claimant.

              Comment


                #8
                The worst discrimination is against single under 25's who are only allowed the equivalent of a single room in a shared house. I am working with a young woman who is uder 25 and expecting a baby in February. Obviously she will need a 2-bed house when the baby is born, for which she will be allowed something between £450- £550 per month in York, but until the baby is born she can only get approx. £50 per week.
                I know the argument is "they should get a job" but there are plenty of unemployed over 25's out there who have much more choice in where they live.

                Comment


                  #9
                  She should consider herself lucky if she's entitled to a 2-bed. Some London Boroughs consider a 1-bed flat adequate untilt the child is 4 years old.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Yes I fully understand that .. perhaps I didn't explain it properly .. HB paid ONLY the 1 x bed market rent the Rent Officer stated for the private property .. which was actually LESS than that of a 1 x bed owned by a Housing Association. (I paid the difference from my own funds).

                    i.e. If I rented a 1 x bed privately I would get less HB than if I rented from an HA or LA

                    So what I'm suggesting is that the Rent Officer and HB dept. are actually working on two sets of different figures - one for the private market and another (higher) rate for Housing Associations and Local Authorities.

                    Doesn't seem right to me ..

                    Originally posted by caroline7758 View Post
                    Pippay, I agree with what you say. As for your own experience, remember that the assessment is based on the claimant's needs, so they would pay more for a single person with a child in a 2-bed than for a single person in the same place, because they would say a single person doesn't need two beds.
                    Any information or opinion given in this post is based only on my personal experience, what I have learned from this, other boards and elsewhere. It is not to be relied on. Definitive advice is only available from a Solicitor or other appropriately qualified person. E&OE

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by caroline7758 View Post
                      The worst discrimination is against single under 25's who are only allowed the equivalent of a single room in a shared house. I am working with a young woman who is uder 25 and expecting a baby in February. Obviously she will need a 2-bed house when the baby is born, for which she will be allowed something between £450- £550 per month in York, but until the baby is born she can only get approx. £50 per week.
                      I know the argument is "they should get a job" but there are plenty of unemployed over 25's out there who have much more choice in where they live.
                      your right its not good for under 25`s but i have a couple who are both under 25 in a 1 bed flat at £540 pcm and council pay it it full

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Is Paul f. suggesting that it is ok to discriminate against people on HB but not people on other benefits. I don't find any of it discrimanatory at all. If I don't wish to let my property to certain areas of the community then there is no (present) law that can make me.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Err........no you're wrong - it's the perception that counts, not the actuality. The DDA 2005 does state that it is discriminatory not to treat a disabled person the same as any able bodied person.

                          The point about housing benefit is that it is a benefit available to persons on low income or the unemployed etc., whereas disability benefit is because that person is disabled. To generalise that ALL benefit claimants are excluded no matter why they are having to claim would envelop disabled persons as excluded.

                          Look! If you don't believe me just contact one of the many organisations who deal with disabled persons - they'll put you right. It's only a matter of time before somebody takes a landlord to court for this.

                          Also I've just notified the advertising manager of one of the large evening newspaper groups in my area about this and they agree with me that they cannot allow adverts stating "No DSS" (obsolete as it is) but will allow them to state "No HB claimants".
                          The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Benefits or otherwise

                            The simplest answer is surely to advertise for "professionals only" and before anyone starts, yes that does discriminate on age grounds against the retired.

                            The "discrimination" is surely that landlords are running a business and as such need to ensure that they have a regular flow of income. Benefits can be turned off very easily. I appreciate that people can lose their jobs but often employed people have a different mind set to those on benefits. I have let to people claiming housing benefit, when it was paid as a top-up to people on low income. Full-time claimants have a different attitude to the property and rent because they are not actually the ones paying.

                            As a landlord I agree with Tweedle Dum to a certain extent provided he/she is not discriminating on other grounds such as race, religion, sexual orientation etc.



                            This is advice only. Always consult a solicitor if in doubt.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Paul_f,

                              Which brings me back to the point that a large propertion of people on Disability benefits are on HB ONLY because of their disability, so does stating no HB discriminate against those disabled people ?
                              Any information or opinion given in this post is based only on my personal experience, what I have learned from this, other boards and elsewhere. It is not to be relied on. Definitive advice is only available from a Solicitor or other appropriately qualified person. E&OE

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X