Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Richlist

Court Rules 'No DSS' Illegal

Recommended Posts

A new court ruling has found that landlords and agents can no longer refuse people in receipt of benefits as they have ruled its unlawfull & discriminatory.

How will that actually work in practice ?......(I know it's no longer DSS but I'm gonna use that term anyway).

* No DSS is part of the t & c's of some mortgage lenders.

* DSS won't qualify for rent guarantee.

* DSS are unlikely to provide a home owning guarantor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ruling does not set a legal precedent - no new law has been created.

I'm just about to start interviewing for a new tenant so we have decided to do block viewings and short list  best suited then look at their income.  Obviously I won't choose someone on DSS unless there are exceptional circumstances - can't think what they may be?

Interestingly one of my tenants after an accident at work has been on DSS for some 3 years now.  They are still the perfect tenant.   I find that persons and their offspring on long term DSS payments and have never worked successfully are the 'entitled'.  They cause more problems with non payment, maintenance and  ASB than regular working people.  That is a fact I have observed over 25+ year of letting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree. I had a similar situation....had long term tenant, he lost job, went on benefits, continued to be an ideal tenant, now he's  back in full time work. But I wouldn't want to take someone on benefits from the start. It's a bit of a specialised area of letting. People who do it regularly like Grampa seem to manage it very well, are happy with that, know the tricks & wrinkles etc. But it's not for me, never had been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tenant still has to pass any affordability check. So if the rent is higher than the HB rates that would be a reason to refuse in the same way if a working tenant income was too low.  Also I guess if you can prove the lender doesn’t allow that not you refusing but your lender/insurance company etc. 
I’m personally not too bothered with the ruling even with my no HB properties, there is always a work around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my understanding of the law is unless there is a ruling in the high court which this doesn’t appear to be or an act of parliament so it’s written into statute this is just a decision at local level for this case only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't be difficult to reject benefit applicants on some other reasoning.

Where you we might fall foul of discrimination, any discrimination, is if we have a significant portfolio and are unable to demonstrate that we do or have let to a specific minority group that the vulture (Shelter included) are making the claim on. I guess that could include the minority group of remain voters (te he). 1st though there needs to be a statute penalty range for us to consider. Clearly as well as self promotion Shelter would be aiming for comp' but my scant read didn't see what. My point is that if the penalty is slight it could be better to chance it, but avoid the massive penalty of legal costs.

BTW hinted at but long term sick and retired housing benefit claimants can be a reasonable choice. The intentionally unemployed are likely problems ahead.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. So more poor reporting by the BBC.

Nothing to worry about.

Business as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on this matter is that you if you positively discriminate against a DSS applicant by actually stating to their face or in writing to the applicant then you could fall foul of some obscure court ruling.

For all the reasons mentioned above /below this Court ruling would be difficult to enforce. If I have to re-advertise for a tenant I would not actually mention the title no DSS..... so job done in my view.

I would think the next steps by Shelter and other organisations will be no positive discrimination to be allowed in advertising when stating "NO Pets". 😊

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there are subtle nuances to they way an advertisement can be worded. Clearly 'No Benefits Tenants' is very blatant and in your face BUT how about......

.'working tenants only', ?

'tenants must be in full time employment' ?

'£xxx minimum income', ?

' must qualify for rent guarantee insurance' ?

Etc, etc.....all of which would probably exclude most people on benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...