Ban on landlords who reject tenants on HB

[Grampa]

Housing Minister Heather Wheeler is planning a ban on private landlords who reject tenants claiming benefits.

She is opening a charm offensive to encourage landlords and letting agents to drop the no DSS adverts by lining up meetings with mortgage providers, landlord associations, tenant groups, and property websites. But is ready to follow-up with a new law if the lettings industry fails to embrace the change. Wheeler argues that 890,000 out of 4.5 million tenants renting private homes are paid housing benefits towards their rents. But she is concerned half of landlords are unwilling to let homes to tenants on benefits, which rules out renting for thousands of vulnerable people and families.

The minister is also sharing a Private Rented Sector Access Fund of nearly £20 million between 54 housing projects in England to help the homeless or those at risk of losing their home. The money is aimed at aiding councils to pay deposits and the first month’s rent on private rented homes

.“I want everyone to have the security, dignity and opportunities they need to build a better life – at the heart of which is ensuring everyone can find a safe and secure home to call their own,” said Wheeler. “This funding will make a huge difference in opening up the private rented sector to people who need it and give them the chance to rebuild their lives." “I will also be meeting key stakeholders to tackle the practice of ‘No DSS’, to underline the need for immediate change.”

She also explained landlords can already receive rent from tenants on Housing Benefit and Universal Credit by payments directly into their bank accounts. Minister for Family Support, Housing and Child Maintenance, Justin Tomlinson said: “Everyone should have the same opportunity when looking for a home, regardless of whether they are in receipt of benefits. “With Universal Credit, payments can be paid directly to the landlord, and we continue to listen to feedback and work with landlords to improve the system.”

Another badly thought out hair-brained idea from people with no idea how the letting industry works. We will now see numerous HB tenants applying for unsuitable properties. Which I mean by properties that are hugely more expensive than the local HB rate for that size of property. The would-be tenants will swear blind they can afford a monthly top-up of 200+ quid from their other benefits and many inexperienced agent or landlord will fall for it but end up having to evict at a later date. Bloody madness.

RANT OVER.    

 

[kerbut]

I will use the (true) excuse my property insurance states working professional tenants only.

[Richlist]

I have never failed to find a legitimate reason for rejecting any applicant. People's lives are complex and everyone is different. It's the same with job interviews......you just pick the best person suited to the position.

With HB tenants i find a large proportion have pets......I don't want pets.

Many of them smoke......I don't want smokers. Etc, etc ,etc.

It always amazes me when I watch tv programmes about HB or single mums or poor people who can barely scrape enough money together to feed themselves.......many of them have dogs & smoke.

[Melboy]

What it will actually means is that you will not be able to verbally state on any advertising that "DSS Not accepted".

Fine, there are many checks to be carried out before you accept a HB applicant and most of which many HB will not qualify.

Just another meddling interference from a Government Minister who has absolutely no idea how the rental business works.

 

[Richlist]

There are so many other reasons for not taking HB tenants....

* Mortgage lenders forbid it.

* Lettings agents don't deal with HB.

* Insurers don't allow it.

If the Gov want property let to HB they should have kept more council properties.

[CommonLaw]

If that to be the case, when they come to view and they tell you they on bens, just inform them you have block viewings and will let them know. 

[Carryon Regardless]

Often the authoritities will anticipate our out clauses. And bear in mind now that where Scotland used to differ from England and Wales, devolution now permits individual authorities to create their own local legislation.

A T claims they have been unfairly excluded and we might expect to have to defend such. If that becomes the remit for the Property Tribunals to oversee we could end up with a hefty legal bill, Shelter's as well as our own.

A local LL to me ended up paying £,000's in settlement for a deposit action they took on. Realistically he maybe was wrong with his (actually his A's) deposit handling, but Shelter clearly would enjoy our additional penalties that finance their lawyer. He told me the cost was about £1,600, and he doesn't have high end properties.

Any action might request our overall T history. As you all are writing that won't include HB T's.

Just to bleat my previous winge, we are becoming social LL's more and more. We are increasingly less able to run our own business our own way.

Some might consider taking a cheapo property to house HB just to say "look there, of course I do." I can let you have one or two, complete with the HB T advantage.