And what can be done about it?
The tenants organisation DIGS is organising a #YesDSS campaign this month. They are angry that so many landlords and letting agents in London refuse to let to DSS tenants.
This is set out on the DIGS website here in a post which makes several points:
- That ‘No DSS’ is a form of discrimination
- Many people have no choice but to claim benefits
- Social housing is being reduced and is ‘under attack’ by government
- ‘No DSS’ leads to homelessness and increases stress, and
- Landlords and letting agents have got away with too much for too long
The article ends up by saying
Letting agents blame “No DSS” on landlords; landlords blame it on council bureaucracies, mortgage lenders and insurers. Yet the truth is that all of these people need to take proactive responsibility for ensuring that no-one is denied a decent, secure and affordable place to live simply because they don’t earn enough money.
The article links to David Lawrenson’s (rather good) article in the guardian on why landlords won’t let to DSS tenants but does not really address the points he makes.
The problem
I agree that it is disgraceful that so many decent hardworking people are unable to find somewhere to live, just because they need to claim benefits to support themselves.
However, I think that the DIGS campaign is targeting the wrong people.
There is a big difference between the private and the social sector.
- The private sector is largely made up of ordinary people who have purchased one or two properties as an investment – for example, to supplement their pension or provide for their families
- The social sector consists mostly of not for profit organisations whose ‘raison d’etre’ is to provide modest cost accommodation for people of modest means.
Now clearly it is the social housing sector which is best suited to provide housing for housing benefit tenants. Unfortunately though, it is currently haemorrhaging properties through right to buy which are not being replaced.
As DSS tenants are clearly unable to buy their own home, this leaves them nowhere else to go but the private sector.
Why private landlords won’t / can’t let to DSS tenants
It’s all very well for the author of the article on the Digs site to brush off the points made in David Lawrenson’s article, but this is not something landlords can do.
For example – insurance. It is essential that landlords insure their properties – this is both for their benefit and for their tenants benefit. However, many landlords will understandably baulk at paying extra insurance premiums if they take DSS tenants.
Then, if their buy to let mortgage prohibit DSS tenants, they can’t do anything else BUT refuse to take them. If they don’t, they risk increased interest payments or (worst case scenario) foreclosure by the mortgage company. THAT is not going to help the tenants either.
However, I suspect that the biggest problems faced by landlords with DSS tenants are the problems with local authorities.
For example, comments on the Landlord Today report here make the following points:
- They change the allowances to tenants with no warning,
- They backdate enormous (and often fictitious) overpayments which the tenant has no hope of paying.
- They start and stop payments as they wish with no regard for the landlord’s contract with the tenants
- They insist on paying in 4 week cycles instead of calendar month like everyone else
- The council teams are incredibly rude and aggressive to agents and Landlords alike
- They actively encourage defaulting tenants
The first commenter ends by saying
After 10 years of accepting DSS tenants we stopped in Jan 2015 after too many bad experiences- not with tenants but with councils
You may also want to take a look at Kate’s Story on this blog – a true story where a landlord tried to help a DSS tenant but ended up losing out.
Why SHOULD private landlords act to their disadvantage?
Why would any landlord voluntarily let to a tenant where there are likely to be all these problems, when there are plenty of non-DSS tenants around?
To answer the comment from the Digs author
all of these people need to take proactive responsibility for ensuring that no-one is denied a decent, secure and affordable place to live simply because they don’t earn enough money.
I would say ‘why should they?”. They are private individuals, not charities. It’s not their job to house the homeless.
And unless they are ‘stinking rich’ (which most small landlords are not) I don’t even think they have a moral duty to do this. Their duty is to their own families.
Letting agents are of course just the businesses who manage the properties, and are duty-bound to get the best financial return for their customers – they would be negligent if they didn’t and could be vulnerable to compensation claims. Although no doubt their staff will also want to avoid problems with ‘difficult’ local authorities.
The real problem
The real problem is that instead of social housing stock being increased, which is what is desperately needed, it is actually being reduced.
Government seems to be hell bent on doing all it can to increase the ‘right to buy’ sell-off and make it difficult for Housing Associations and other social landlords to build any more.
Thus completely ignoring the needs of DSS and other low-income families who have nowhere else to go. For example, they can hardly stump up the 1/2 million or so needed for an ‘affordable‘ property in London.
Possible solutions
It goes without saying that Local Authorities and Housing Associations should be encouraged to build and acquire property to let to benefit tenants.
There are also other traditional and innovative solutions that could be looked at, such as
- Compulsorily acquiring some of the many properties lying empty
- Using unused areas of land to house the homeless in cheaper and quickly erected ‘container’ and ‘popup’ housing such as is being done in a few places
- Encouraging people to build their own homes from standard parts, as was done here
(Give us your suggestions below!)
These are the sorts of things that tenants organisations should, in my view, be focusing on.
Finally, there are still (I hope) some private landlords, generally landlords with larger portfolios, who are prepared to take on DSS tenants. However, they are generally very experienced in this work, will usually insist on payments being made via a credit union and invariably require a home owning guarantor.
If there are any such landlords reading this – please comment below and give us your experience.
John says
The main problem as you suggest is the lenders and insurers, though this is discrimination on their part based on an assumed greater risk. Can you imagine if they decided that black people were a greater risk, or men as opposed to women? It would not be allowed. Landlords are not always to blame but in an over saturated market like London, letting agents do not need to worry landlords with DSS tenants as they can cherry pick those with the most money and on paper the most secure. The fact that any tenant is 1 job loss away from being ‘DSS’ seems to make it all the more rediculous.
The real issue is the further commoditisation of housing. It is a market, open to manipulation and market forces. Homes are now more about saving for a pension than providing safe, secure accomodation for people. Yes the best solution is to build more social housing, but the government don’t see why they should. Just like they don’t see why we should provide healthcare to people or free education. Unfortunately landlords just acting in their own best interest is incompatible with their tenants best interests. We should stop pretending that it will be and seek a better solution.
Keith Jenkyns says
I let to a working tenant who lost his job and became DSS.Then he broke up with his wife and then stopped claiming
Then before eviction he smashed all the windows and ripped up all the carpets.
All in all cost me £5k
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
I have a multiple perspective on this, being a London PRS tenant, having done presentations for both David Lawrenson’s group and DIGS over the past few years and having worked in council’s most of my life.
Whilst I take on board your comments about the small PRS landlord Tessa could it also not be said that “No DSS” is the same as any other form of discrimination? If a letting agent put a sign in their windows saying “No blacks” there would quite rightly be uproar.
And lets scotch the myth that all benefit claimants are feckless work-shy soap-dodgers. Despite sterling efforts by IDS the housing benefit bill has risen instead of going down, not because of more unemployed but more low paid workers.
Cant get the link to work on this but the figures out last week on Tesco are that they employ 209,000 people who are officially low paid. These people claimed £364m in working tax credit and housing benefit, meaning we the tax payer are shelling out nearly half a million quid on benefits so that Tesco can pay rubbish wages…..Thats just one corporation.
That council housing benefit team are unhelpful I couldn’t comment on specifics, as with any industry there are good and rude staff but bear in mind that what underpins the tight-lipped approach is that a housing benefit claim is between the council and the tenant only. It isn’t the landlord’s claim. That is why many HB teams wont talk to the landlord.
I think this is a big mistake. A lot could be done to encourage landlords with DSS tenants would be for council’s to be more helpful.
AS a TRO of 25 years standing I found most threatened illegal evictions are prompted by HB being stopped and compounded by HB not telling the landlord what is going on. As a consequence I averted most of these threatened evictions simply by talking to HB internally and then telling the landlord what was going on.
Breaking the rules? Absolutely. Exercising common sense and saving the home? Yes….and proud!
ken mayo says
Sorry but I believe that you have all got it wrong – why can’t a landlord decide to whom he lats a property – this is just being prudent with your investment – in the same way a building society does not want you to let it to this sector – in the same objective way as a car manufacturer or arms dealer makes prudent decisions about who to sell to! no difference – just protecting your investment in a common sense way – it is not for the private sector to be held to ransom by non paying tenants. Whats needed is more social housing. – bring back council houses I say – should never have sold them in the first place.
Mandy Thomson says
Insurance firms are allowed to often do discriminate against particular groups based on characteristics such as age and disability, as insuring some groups carries more risk than others (e.g. older people pay much more for health insurance than young people).
Age and disability are characteristics that the individual can’t change – these are immutable, but the law nevertheless recognises insurance companies’ need to discriminate here or go out of business.
In the case of someone who claims any form of housing benefit because they are low paid or unemployed, unless they are in that situation because of severe disability, they do have some option to change this (although granted not easily or straight away) – i.e. they can improve their skills and / or take a job in another area.
Ivan says
Insurance companies are not discriminating though, that’s a common misconception. They offer a ‘bespoke’ service. The consumer is asking for cover based on their circumstances. The insurer does not have a ‘base’ or ‘set’ price which varies depending on whether the consumer is 18 or 38.
Nathalie says
Mandy this is a bit harsh : ‘In the case of someone who claims any form of housing benefit because they are low paid or unemployed, unless they are in that situation because of severe disability, they do have some option to change this (although granted not easily or straight away) – i.e. they can improve their skills and / or take a job in another area.’
How about single mums for instance, that only get 15 hours a week at the nursery, and before then, there is no other option than having the child full time or paying a lot of money to have him/her looked after ? Do you know how much child care costs ?
How about self-employed single mums that just cannot run a business whilst having a full time baby to look after ? Take the baby to potential clients meetings ?
b199er says
Out of curiosity, what’s the difference in cost of landlord’s insurance of tenants with and without DSS? Is it really that huge as to prompt landlords to avoid it. Same goes with mortgage lenders, is it really that big a risk?
Are all DSS tenants one single character? Surely risk is evaluated as a sum of many aspects. Could be an idea to factor in if the DSS has any qualifications, or a criminal record. Rather than blanket not cover them in the insurance. Are there any other groups that landlords insurance or mortgage lenders won’t cover? Tenants with medical conditions, a history of epilepsy etc.?
Ian S says
Tessa writes: “I would say ‘why should they?”. They are private individuals, not charities. It’s not their job to house the homeless.”
But most charities were started as local initiatives by individuals who could see that “the common good” requires individuals to see beyond the immediate needs of their own kith and kin. Inevitably, just like companies and governments, charities wax and wane. And governments are always running to catch up with events (which they make worse perhaps as often as they make good).
So could it be time for concerned individuals to get together and re-boot the charitable sector? There are plenty of concerned landlords, and they have plenty of practical experoience of housing provision. Surely they can they work together for the common good?
Tessa Shepperson says
That would be nice and maybe some landlords will do that. I know that many landlords would be happy to let to DSS tenants if only there were not so many issues.
However my point in the post is that they should not be expected or required to act in a way which is or which they perceive to be to their financial disadvantage.
There is a big difference between taking on a DSS tenant voluntarily and being forced to do so against your will.
Alison says
From a L/L perspective we have taken many DSS tenants in the past but not any more.
The main reason (along with the ones already stated) is the issue of the cost & time incurred just to get your property back should you need to. The cost runs into thousands and most of it is not recoverable and often once you give notice the rent (if it is being paid) magically stops being paid to you.
We never gave notice without good reason (arrears generally anyway). I agree that the majority of DSS tenants look after your property and do pay their rent on time but, like in most walks of life, it’s the minority who give the majority a bad name.
This experience of councils forcing L/L’s to go to court for possession & then bailiffs is from pre 2008 and is therefore not just a recent issue.
Heather says
I’m a member of Digs. Really glad some debate has been sparked and thanks for some helpful comments! We launched #YesdSS in an action that targeted agents that have a blanket ‘No DSS’ policy. We’re very clear though that this issue has a number of ‘stakeholders’ involved and we’ll also be targeting landlords, mortgage lenders and the council. We’ve already started talking to Hackney Council about what they can do to make more accommodation open to people on benefits.
On the point about not FORCING landlords/ agents to take people on benefits, we don’t have the power to force them to do anything whether we wanted to or not.
But public relations is an important part of business, and increasingly agents in Hackney want to cultivate a positive image with local people. So we’re using the power we do have as renters and local people to make it clear ‘No DSS’ policies are not okay with us, we’ll publicly name those who use them and we’ll try to do what we can to encourage agents, landlords and the council to open the PRS up to people on benefits (given that this is the only housing available to increasing numbers of people).
kieran greene says
Im a landlord of thirty years i used to take dss but not any more iv just had a bill for 5 thousand pounds for a tenant that claimed housing benefit to which he was not entilted and as im the one that recieved the rent iv got to pay it back thoughi was not party to the fraud
Tessa Shepperson says
LA clawback has always been a potential problem when landlords are paid direct by the LA.
This is one reason why some landlords prefer to have the payments made via a credit union http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/07/02/preparing-for-universal-credit-the-credit-unions/
K Pearson says
We have had a few tenants who overclaimed for long periods of time and their benefit entitlements were cancelled, however we, as the landlord, (despite receiving direct payments) were not charged. It was my understanding that HB could only claim overpayments of this type back from landlords if the landlord had reason to be aware that the tenant was not entitled to claim and didn’t inform the council as is their duty. It seems as though this may not be correct, or is this discretionary?
Juliet Bonnet says
K Pearson, count yourself very lucky that the council didn’t make you pay back the money the tenants were deemed to have been overpaid!
The official line on housing benefit now – and for some years – is that whether the rent is paid directly to the tenant or to you – is immaterial. If they deem the tenant was not entitled to have that rent paid, then they say the receiver of that rent – whether tenant or landlord – has to pay it back (even if it relates to a previous tenancy and a previous landlord!) and it is up to you the landlord, to try to get your tenant to re-imburse you – (ha ha!). try enforcing that one!
Another important dis-incentive for landlords to accept DSS tenants is that if the tenants dont stay put – after being given notice – untill the Court bailiff has come to evict them which can take many months without rent – then the council have no duty of care to house them Once the eviction takes place, the council has to house them, even if its in hotel or hostel bed and breakfast, for however long it takes for a suitable property to become available. Leaving before eviction is deemed “making yourself voluntarily homeless” and the council then doesn’t have to offer you anywhere.
Rent Rebel says
As David Lawrenson’s Guardian link (and others) suggest, this topic is so nuanced it’s hard to know where to start really. I think it’s worth sharing these links aswell, re “discrimination” cos there has been so much discussion on the topic already.
http://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/refusing-dss-tenants-is-discrimination/
(with landlord’s comments)
https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/are-landlords-breaking-the-law-when-they-demand-no-dss/
Interestingly, Ireland has just made this discrimination illegal..
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/rent-allowance-tenants-face-delays-over-complaints-hearings-1.2549419
It;’s worth looking at the Dublin Tenants’ Assoc Facebook page for more info.
We mjust change our own equality laws of course and make it illegal here aswell. But discrimination is a subtle thing and very hard to prove of course. In the end the conversation goes round and round and gets back to nowhere because the system is just broken isn’t it. Housing is a human right, that’s been left to the market – and this is the mess that we’re in. Re Heather’s comment…
“We’re very clear though that this issue has a number of ‘stakeholders’ involved and we’ll also be targeting landlords, mortgage lenders and the council. We’ve already started talking to Hackney Council about what they can do to make more accommodation open to people on benefits.”
It wd be interesting to know what tactics DIGS are using and advocating. It wd certainly be useful for other tenants’s groups aswell. Their Facebook event (it was on 27 Feb) talks of having some success already…
“Well done to Digs and Heather Karen Kennedy who won a small but important victory by getting local pouncy estate/letting agent Keatons, to reverse its policy and agree take tenants who claim housing benefit. Direct Action works!”
.., but there is little to go on. Did the letting agency just cave in after one demo? Are they even telling the truth?!
Some lenders DO accept DSS incidentally (unless they’ve U-turned again). That’s Lloyds and Nationwide/Mortgage Works. This is from March & April 2013.
http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2013/apr/09/housing-benefit-climbdown-lenders-risk
http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2013/03/time-for-a-sea-change-among-buy-to-let-lenders/
(Some BTL lenders will accept 36 month tenancies aswell; while i’m sharing good news. Namely Paragon, The Mortgage Works and Keystone Mortgages)
Also.. Acorn Bristol are doing some good work with letting agents and asking them to sign up to their ethical charter (Pgs 16-19 for the detail) http://www.acorncommunities.org.uk/its_rental
DIGS cd certainly do the same. But as I see it this “NO DSS” just demonstrates once again that the PRS is not fit for purpose. Housing benefit and Local Housing Allowance effectively replaced rent controls – in theory, making prices drop; but that never happened of course. Govt policy has typically been empowering landlords and dis-empowering tenants.
Paul Barrett says
You are clueless there is nothing wrong with the PRS
However what you don’t seem to appreciate is that it is usually operated by most LL for PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is the case that the vast majority of DSS tenants are excellent
A substantial minority AREN’T
It is this minority which causes so much damage to a LL faith in the system
The EVICTION process is ;largely to blame for the problems
If LL could evict 7 days after a missed rent payment with NO requirement to attend a court of for a bailiff to attend you would find many LL offering tenancies to DSS tenants
There are of course the impediments of lenders and insurers
It should be for Govt to force lenders to allow LL to accept DSS tenants at the outset of a tenancy
It should also confirm at what point does a tenant become a DSS tenant
£0.50 of HB or more!!??
Remember the OBC could mean a LL has £2.00 of HB per month, are they DSS tenants!!???
Plus it should force the insurers to offer the same policies for ANY tenant no matter what their income status or where they source that income from
Business and Govt needs to get together to sort out these issues so that LL aren’t restricted by them in whom they choose to take on
Councils should be FORCED to accept that when a S 21 or S 8 has expired that tenant is homeless
Ist should be noted that NO BTL mortgage lender will allow a tenancy of longer than 1 year
This is because a lender want to know that it can eventually repossess a property even if rent is being paid
When L specify NO DSS it is NOT a sleight on HB tenants per se
It is because of all the issues that have been mentioned plus the unhappy experiences that many LL have suffered and that sort of pervades the LL community
So from a purely business perspective you can understand why the little LL wishes to avoid sometimes problematic DSS tenants!!!
But don’t worry too much as most of those LL will be taxed out of business by Dopey Osborne and his Turnover Tax, SDLT and loss of 10% wear and tear allowance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So there will be even fewer rental properties available for anyone least of all DSS tenants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The answer is to obviously close the borders and start a massive council house building problem
Such properties should be for only BRITISH Single nationals so no Commonwealth citizens would qualify
Eventually sole British Citizens will be housed
The remaining can use the PRS
Building sufficient housing of whatever type will never solve the housing crisis UNLESS demand is cooled
CLOSING the borders is the ONLY way to achieve this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PRS LL are NOT to blame for ANYTHING
They are just normal business; just like the butcher, baker and candlestick maker
Something the Govt has decided will no longer be the case and after about 250 years of tax process is going to turn the whole concept of business on its head; but only for SOLE TRADER LL
BONKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ivan says
So just to clarify, you’re advocating the right for a LL to remove tenants themselves (with Ben and Tony from down the pub?)
– That’s not to say I don’t take issue with other things you’ve posted, but largely I’m ignoring the UKIP agenda, as your political views aren’t really my concern.
John says
Interesting post. From what I understand, campaigns against “No DSS” signs are primarily opposed to direct discrimination, not “forcing landlords” but telling agents and landlords that – if a person can pay the rent, can pay the deposit, has references declaring that they pay the rent on time, are a good tenant etc. that person (and these are many) should not be blocked from PRS.
The commonly perceived problem is that “No DSS” is as much about acquiring the “right kind of tenant” (ie high-earning) as the supposed financial disadvantages and so contributes to cleansing out of particular kinds of people.
I take your point though that, “letting agents are of course just the businesses who manage the properties, and are duty-bound to get the best financial return for their customers” – a solution perhaps would be for the campaigns to target the government – to restrict buy-to-let more broadly through land ceiling and zoning regulations etc. Either way dramatic urban demographic changes, and the broadening out of the rental population, are bound -in the near future- to politicise PRS further and likely bring in a whole series of regulations and market restrictions.
Good luck to the campaign!
Matt says
It seems to me that there are two elements to this argument: a logistical one and a moral one. Tessa points out that there are certain challenges which can pose problems for some landlords as far DSS goes: higher insurance rates for those with tenants who claim HB, restrictions set by mortgage lenders (obviously not an issue for outright owners), confusion and inconsistency around HB payment and council/DWP bureaucracy. These clearly are issues in some instances, but the very fact that some landlords do accept DSS – from smallscale individuals up to the biggest housing associations – shows that they are by no means insurmountable.
For significant changes in these areas to take place, landlords will have to play a leading role in advocating for them, and this ties in to the moral issue. Tessa suggests that landlords shouldn’t be morally obliged to house people on low incomes, and this is where the problem lies. It is irrefutable that a home is one of the most important factors in a person’s life. If landlords want to make a living out of providing homes – out of providing one of the key foundations for someone’s well-being – then I’m afraid they need to accept that they do have a responsbility to house people who require support to pay their rent. They have a responsibility to those less fortunate than them, and they have a responsbility to the wider society: we all suffer when insecurity and homelessness are on the rise.
Landlords are not the only cause of the housing crisis, but they are a major part of it. As things stand, the right to “not suffer financial disadvantage,” as Tessa puts it, is being privileged over the right to have a secure home. So it seems to me that landlords who say “No DSS” are getting it back to front. If you agree that everyone should have a decent and secure place to live, then you proactively tackle whatever prevent that from occurring, especially if you’re profiting from other people’s need. Instead, “No DSS” landlords are using logistical challenges to wash their hands of responsibility.
Frankly, If you don’t want to accept the obligations that come with providing homes, don’t become a landlord.
Paul Barrett says
Morals have got NOTHING to do with it
PRS LL are in it for the money
Otherwise there is no point
As individual businesses we can decide who we sell our assets to
We are NOT allowed to discriminate for race; colour,creed, gender ,sexuality,religion or disability
Which we don’t!!!
We are as businesses perfectly within our rights to discriminate against those we consider insufficiently capable of affording our assets and for being able to recover our properties quickly at little loss
Which is why RGI is so important; becuase the eviction system conspires against LL recovering their properties from non-rent paying tenants for WHATEVER reason
The bank won’t care if you have missed mortgage payments because there was a HB payment problem
The lender will just repossess
Unless you are a small LL you have NO idea of the issues involved
Most small LL just can’t afford the financial risk of a DSS tenant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rent Rebel says
John and Matt have made excellent comments, I think.
I just wanted to add these links if I may, because they are so pertinent to this discussion and helpful for tenants who might be reading:
http://www.smf.co.uk/the-problem-with-universal-credit-and-the-private-rented-sector/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/oct/08/liberty-clinic-lettings-equality-acts.
Ian says
For me the factors are.
I can’t get “copper bottom” RGI insurance on most DSS tenants, if I could then the other issues would not have as much effect.
The court system is VERY slow, and there is no way to enforce a judgement to recover my costs from most tenants on benefits. (With a tenant in a good stable job, an attachment of earning order, may take many years, but does make the tenant pay for their actions in the end.)
The benefit rates are no longer keeping up with rents, so in the long term anyone I take on benefits will find it hard to pay the rent.
My one set of dealings with my local council housing benefit team and their inability to understand a Section 48 when I brought a property with a tenant in place on direct payment leaves me not wishing to ever have to talk to the council housing benefit team again. (UC looks like it will be just as bad.)
PS I have one DSS tenant (with home owning guarantor) that is one of the best tenants I could hope for.
Matt says
“The benefit rates are no longer keeping up with rents”. Here’s an idea: LOWER THE RENTS then. If you want to keep good tenants who respect the place they live in, give them the opportunity to lay down roots.
David Price says
Matt I only house DSS tenants and receive direct payment for all of them. My rent has been kept down to the LHA rate for the last ten years but now, with increasing taxes and increasing maintenance costs, I cannot maintain that rent any longer and remain solvent. Universal Credit will kill the direct payment and, since most of my tenants are inept with money management, ultimately result in mass eviction.
Please don’t blame me for the blame lies with the Conservative government.
Paul Barrett says
Matt yet again you are failing to appreciate that as LL we seek to MAXIMISE our rents cos most of us are in the game to make as much money as we can
Why should we seek less rent when it is possible to achieve more!!!!!!!!!!!??????
Why would I want to do that when there are are more than enough tenants who will pay market rents
PRS LL have NO moral or social reason to sell their assets for less than they could
Are you a Jeremy Corbyn supporter as you have as much understanding about the real world as him!!!!!!???
Perhaps GOVT needs to incentivise PRS LL to take on DSS tenants
Maybe by removing the C24 and SDLT tax for those offering DSS tenants acommodation!!!!??
Industry Observer says
The only protected characteristics in the private rental sector are sex, race and disability. Not students, DSS, age or anything else is discrimination – not yet. My money is on age being next
HB Welcome says
The answer to this is simple.
Allow higher rate tax landlords to be able to continue offsetting all interest payments if they let to tenants on benefits.
This is what they did in Ireland.
How about campaigning for that Digs?
HB Welcome says
Another thing in praise of ‘DSS’, next month I’m getting a brand new ‘A’ rated boiler to replace a 25 year old one- all for nowt.
The scheme is mired in red tape and “computer says NO!”. You have to hold your tenants hand throughout the whole process but it is possible. And if you’re a DSS landlord used to dealing with the council HB jobsworths, then comparatively it is a doddle.
Search “ECO boiler”.
Peter says
When landlords say that they do not want the hassle or risk of tenants receiving housing benefit, this seems reasonable as its their property and their investment. However lets look at this from a different angle.
Councils used to be best placed to manage social housing. With ample housing stock, moving not people around and rehousing folk was no big deal. Now successive governments have failed to supply new housing and sold off existing. This has pushed people into the private sector.
Here a landlord can directly profit from the profitable side of the equation, but as soon as they want to sell up, or give their flat to their offspring, (as it seems fair they should) they are making a social tenant homeless. who then has to foot the bill for this? The local council.
So the landlord talks all the profit, the council takes all the risk. They pay for temporary housing which is increasingly B&Bs or moving families away from their friends and children’s schools. This pressure has lead councils to try and drop their responsibility for housing people at the earliest opportunity, just to cope.
Meanwhile the Landlord can put up the rent every 6 months to keep pace with the ‘market’ they have received many tax breaks over the years, which are only just starting to be reduced now. Some landlords say it’s no longer profitable, I’d say it should never have been profitable.
The issue we have in this country is trying to make everything private, for profit. From schools to healthcare. It doesn’t serve the people, only private individuals. If we had better rent control, security of tenure and minimal enforceable housing standards, or ‘red tape’ as the Tories call it, then we could have a more stable ‘market’ for everyone. This is the situation in many other European countries, it’s madness that we prioritise a second income for some over security for all.
Gareth Thomas says
I have two separate DSS tenants whose “circumstances” have changed which has decimated the amount of housing benefit they are entitled to and the effects have been catastrophic (for me).
The first is a young single mother who became a student. HB stopped as she’s in receipt of loans and grants over the threshold. End result is she’s paid everything else first (like childcare places which I believe are very expensive) and nothing to me for over 5 months. Current arrears are around £5,000 and climbing.
The second became a taxi driver for Uber. Hires a car and has other costs like petrol etc and can’t even make enough money to clear those expenses he claims. Has a history of non-payment of his contribution towards utilities (ie his top up out of his JSA as was then) and has arrears of around £4,000 and climbing.
I’m footing the bill for their free housing as neither of them have the ability or desire to pay what they rightfully owe.
Eviction is going to be tough with these new laws too.
Colin Lunt says
There is no reason why ‘eviction is going to be tough’ with what I assume are the requirements for issuing of gas safety and EPC certs if you are using the S21 procedure. If using the section 8 procedure there should not be any difference from previous
Ian says
@Gareth,
I am asking myself way you have not served and enforced a S8 on both these tenants as soon as you were legally able to do so……
(In both cases a “none dss” tenant could have done the same thing.)
Gareth Thomas says
@Ian – I feel sorry for them. One’s an immigrant with leave to remain in the UK and a lovely chap but just shocking with looking after his finances and business affairs as a taxi driver (no clue about setting up standing orders to pay utilities etc) and the other is a young single mum with toddler that decided after 2 years to go back to University and clearly had no intention of paying any rent out of her grant money/university loans. All of it seems to go on toddler’s private nursery!
I’ll have to warn them of the Section 8 process but it will cause ill will on their part I’m sure and make them complete uncommunicative as a result.
Angela says
I’m a single mother, not by choice. My partner decided after 5 yrs he has had enough, & I was not what he wanted anymore. I’m struggling to find some where to live, & spent 5 months sofa surfing and accepting charity from friends & family. Desperate to get a home, i very been offered a job earning £15k a year, but that isn’t enough. As a Tennant in a London Borough I need to be earning £30 k. I will have to top up with benefits & a part time job, but cannot believe someone would pay their rent last, if at all after paying everything else. There’s no point in paying everything else when you have no roof over your head. Just so angry that everyone seems to target people on benefits with the same brush. We don’t all sit on our butts watching Jeremy Kyle!
Chris says
To say that No DSS is a form of discrimination is ridiculous, it is, to most PRS landlords, a financial and management issue. Of course the PRS are entitled to make a profit, we are a business not a charity. We contribute to the tax coffers and, in my case, take care of our own pension provision, thus reducing the strain on the government benefits system. Are people with jobs therefore going to be required to use their pensions investments / income to support HB claimants.
I have HB tenants and have had a generally good experience, however this is only since I restricted access to those supported by Fusion or Housing Options (in our LA), who vet the applicants to within an inch of their lives, provide a bond guarantee, guarantee direct HB payments to the landlord and pursue the HB office if there are interruptions in payments.
Why do the LA insist HB is a tenants benefit and should be paid directly to them when it is provided for the purpose of putting a roof over their heads, i.e. pay the rent! In the Australian system they don’t even give DSS cash to live on, instead they issue coupons for food, clothes etc. If the government wish to instil some sense of financial responsibility in those people let them do it at their expense not the PRS.
I concur with the comments made regarding the ridiculously complicated and lengthy legal eviction process, expecting the PRS to absorb the losses. If a shoplifter steals from a shop the police will arrest them and remove them from the premises immediately. If a patient abuses NHS staff they are removed immediately and prosecuted. Yet the PRS have to take everything on as if it is their social obligation.
Legislation and LA policy is constantly squeezing the PRS, safety issue are fully justified but why have the LA removed class C exemption from council tax charges for genuine landlords who maintain their properties for rent during temporary void periods, and charge full tax for that temporarily vacant property when a single occupant gets a 25% discount.
It is easy for those non – landlords to moralise, but what do you do for this situation other than pay your taxes and perhaps contribute to charities, just as PRS landlords do!
Colin Lunt says
In your third to last paragraph you are confusing civil and criminal law and that is why there is a difference in the role of the police. The obligation to pay rent is a civil contract law matter, and as such is not within the role of the police to deal with it. Abuse or assault of hospital staff is also a criminal law matter and again in the ambit of the police.
If a tenant steals a central heating boiler from their tenancy that is a criminal matter and dealt with by the police.
If a trader fails to pay for goods supplied by another trader, or a trader having paid for goods fails to receive them they are both civil matters. Of course you may think that the police should go into a company and take the goods for the other party or take money from the person who has failed to pay but you are likely to face a lot of opposition from big companies who object to police involvement.
As has been noted above, being a private landlord is a business and is treated the same as in any other supply of goods dispute
Tessa Shepperson says
There is an article about the difference between civil and criminal law here
http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/criminal-law-and-civil-law-explained-they-are-not-the-same/
ian says
=> “being a private landlord is a business and is treated the same as in any other supply of goods dispute”
If only! If you don’t pay for your food at the local shop, they are not forced to give you free food for the next 6 months!
If you don’t pay after filling up your car at a garage, or after eating a meal at a restaurants the police with take action.
Colin Lunt says
Quite simply the PRS is a profit motivated sector and there is nothing wrong with that at all. The current and previous governments have put forward the view that the private sector is perfectly reasonable and affordable for those on social security and housing benefit, whilst implementing policy that directly compromises that as a possibility.
Some private landlords, whilst perhaps having a social conscience motivation are not social services or social workers and cannot be expected to take up that role. The fact that some do not want to accept tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit, is only economic discrimination and is sensible from the perspective of a small business.
That being said good standards of accommodation and tenancy management must be enforced regardless of the economic circumstances of the tenants
Chris says
Well said Ian.
I am fully aware of the difference, in the interpretation of the police, of what is civil & criminal action. I was slightly reserved in my earlier comments and would now, for clarity, make the point that the law is quite clearly an ass.
To add to Ians’ comments, the NHS are also morally / socially and legally obliged to provide medical care to the populace, but will arbitrarily eject any abusive / uncooperative patients. Oh that we had that option, I would be a very happy landlord.
Rent Rebel says
Unsurprisingly this has turned into another conversation about rent arrears..
… which predictably turns into a chorus of complaints about S.8.
I often wonder why landlords don’t collectivise and campaign to reform the S.8 possession ground; all things considered. Or does it suit them better maybe to bring it up.. at times like this.. when defending their honour. It always reads like a sort of tit-for-tat defence.
I wonder what reforms you might ask for..? And how you wd reform the S.8 ground if you cd..?.
You can’t cut out the courts of course. Nor take the law into your own hands…
The business you’re in comes with unique risks of course, that’s the reality. The “consumer” analogy doesn’t hold up. I cd easily turn them on their head.
Chris asked…
“Why do the LA insist HB is a tenants benefit and should be paid directly to them when it is provided for the purpose of putting a roof over their heads, i.e. pay the rent! ”
Because in their attempts to destroy social housing this Govt has sought to turn tenants into consumers and help them shop around for rents. So the decision was made to pay them all direct.
“We’re not a charity’. We are not social services. It’s only economic discrimination”
As Jon said right at the beginning:
“Unfortunately landlords just acting in their own best interest is incompatible with their tenants best interests. We should stop pretending that it will be and seek a better solution.”
Ian says
Re reforms of S8.
If there were never any delays in getting a court hearing. (Within 1 or 2 days of the date on the S8 notice would be about right.)
Judges did not decide they had no time to hear a case when the tenant put forward any defence.
A tenant would be evicted on the date the judge say, with no delays waiting for overworked court officers.
The judge never to give the tenant more than 7 days to remain once the case is decided.
The police to consider it a criminal act if the tenant damages the property while the above is going on.
AND
A tenant could not just pay a little to bring the owned rent below 2 months once the notice has been served on them.
A tenant must pay any rent they “withhold” due to repairs etc, to a body that hold it safely until the court decides what is done with it. This to be paid on the day the rent should have been paid to the landlord.
And all S8 cases were recorded on the tenants credit file on the day the case is hard.
THEN the current S8 process would work mostly as it is.
sonofcollin says
There are currently large numbers of homelessness presentations to the local authority from households living in private rented accommodation who have been given notice.
In many cases these are working households whose incomes are still within the thresholds of income related benefits. An example of such a household could be a working single-parent who (along with child benefit) receives partial housing/council tax benefit and working tax credits.
Many of these households – despite a good track record in the sector -have found that Letting Agents will not acknowledge their benefit related incomes, making it very difficult to access alternative private rented accommodation.
Such households often describe being knocked back by Letting Agents/Landlords who “do not accept DSS”. The term “working professional” is also very common.
The mantra “No DSS” remains in existence some 14 years after the Department of Social Security ceased to exist, suggesting that this is a largely unchallenged attitude.
However the private rented sector was far more accessible to people on lower incomes only 5-6 years a go.
Rents have not only increased significantly, but discriminative attitudes have become far less guarded.
The term “DSS” refers to a socio-economic group of the population and it broadly encompasses anyone who’s income is low enough to entitle them to welfare benefits.
The private and social sectors are quite at odds with each other. We can see these two sectors as two quite distinct forms of politics: one where housing need is a private issue (ie “it’s YOUR problem”) and one where housing need is a “social” issue (ie “it’s OUR problem”).
I am sure no one would think of presenting as homeless at their local letting agent – oh – unless of course you have lots of MONEY.
A social politics is concerned with how much you NEED accommodation, a private politics only with whether you can afford it.
Currently the UK is influenced by a political culture that is all about promoting the private sector and relinquishing the social sector. It is ironic then that advocates and beneficiaries of the private sector should respond to the current housing crisis in the UK by suggesting that we should “build more council houses”.
Are there no Prisons? Are there no Workhouses?
Ian says
@sonofcollin
I expect that the break down in the court system along with two many tenants believing (mostly correctly) that a landlord can never remover any money from them – has a lot to do with landlords being less willing to take risks then they were 5 years ago.
Also “independent” landlord are now a lot more likely to know how hard it can be to remove a none paying tenant, due to the web…..
Steve says
I used to Let to dss and it worked very well untill this new government started meddling as they did
Main reasons I don’t now
1. No direct payment to landlord
2 universal credit
3 a new one clause 24 as as tenants are not going to be able to afford the rent rises coming just to pay this tenant tax
I focus now on Eastern European workers who pay on time in full and I don’t have to deal with local councils who are very unhelpful and anti landlord
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
As rents in London spiral like a whirling Dervish it isnt just benefit tenants getting frozen out. People on zero hours contracts find it impossible to get people to take them on as do many self-employed people whose income waxes and wanes, I include myself and partner in this.
The other day I helped a working couple who couldnt get any agent to rent to them because they are repeatedly being told they needed to earn more than £35,000.
The clueless comment picked up by Rent Rebel ““Why do the LA insist HB is a tenants benefit and should be paid directly to them when it is provided for the purpose of putting a roof over their heads, i.e. pay the rent! ” has me shaking my head in frustration.
The local authority dont insist on this, the local authority simply works to regulations created by government, thats all they do. When the direct payment thing was stopping everyone who worked in councils knew this was going to be an unmitigated disaster, it was.
And yet despite various groups yelling at the then Labour government about the effect it would have on poorer tenants nobody in Westminster listened.
Councils dont have it in for landlords, they need landlords more than at any other time and are busting a gut paying finder’s fees and sweeteners just to get them to hand over their properties for temporary accommodation so they can get some of the countless tenms of thousands of poor buggers languishing in B&Bs the length and breadth of the land.
When I was in rogue landlord enforcement I was regularly told to shut up when I raised little inconveniences like the fact that we were procurring properties from landlords with one team who were being prosecuted for criminal activities by another.
Giving improvement grants to landlords who owed £30k in council tax.
Such is the level of desperation out there.
Ian says
Ben,
One issue with self-employed people, is that it is very hard to enforce a CCJ, as “attachment of earnings” is not an option.
Something is going to break very soon in London, as wages just don’t cover the cost of living. So how will shops etc get staff.
HB Welcome says
“Councils dont have it in for landlords”
I disagree.
It is endemic in the councils I deal with.
They are partially to blame for this situation.
Social and private sector, venus and mars.
Tessa Shepperson says
I have heard via landlords I have spoken to that they find some Council’s attitudes to be very difficult and hostile. Obviously, this is not all Council Officers but where it occurs (and I am sure it DOES occur in some Councils) it does not help.
Council officers do not receive a massive salary and probably many are unable to buy their own home and need to rent themselves – which may affect their attitude if they have a bad landlord …
Colin Lunt says
This will be my last contribution as there is no meeting of minds. Ian & Chris.One other comparison, would you think it reasonable that a mortgage company could use your suggested super fast court scheme to repossess your home if you got into difficulty or even take back your rented properties after all they are in business of loaning money and should not be at a disadvantage
In any event there is a proposal to close a further 86 county courts that must lead to further delays in hearings – and will present real difficulty for some litigants to get to a court and that could mean adjournments. The Civil Justice Council is currently consulting on merging the First Tier Tribunal and the housing court into one body, whether that will make things faster or slower is anyones guess
Xalvadora says
I find it very patronising that my building society does not allow me to let to whoever I want.
I don’t have any issue with DSS tenants. Honesty has little to do with wealth and I believe I am a good judge of character. Far better than a corporation that hasn’t even met the prospective tenant. I am also mature enough to take responsibility in the unlikely event that I make a mistake.
I do have one house with a different building society that is a bit more flexible and was able to persuade them to agree to a dss tenant. I have to pay double the cost of insurance for her because of that.
I agree it’s unfair and these faceless corporations should not have so much power over landlords and tenants. Landlords should be free to use their own judgement.
Gary says
I just about can still rent to LHA tenants, but the housing benefit system is appalling.
I have done my bit for over 15 years, but enough is enough.
I have had to pay back thousands for illegal claims from fraudulent tenants, who know that direct payments can be claimed back from a landlord.
I have been subject to illegal subletting by LHA claimants and quite frankly I am sick of them.
I now specifically advertise to non LHA tenants, but most of my existing LHA tenants are still in situ.
However, thanks to George Osborne’s back door tenant tax called ‘Clause 24’, they will, one by one, now face eviction, unless they can pay my additional business tax bills that are coming through in the next 4 years.
It’s no use blaming me or other landlords for the mess, it’s down to the ridiculous delays and red tape that councils force landlords to go through, to get direct payment.
Chris says
If I had the same hard currency security that mortgage companies have I wouldn’t be so eager to get rid of a non paying tenant, whom once evicted cannot recover the debt from!! Hence our reliance on those oh so benevolent lenders….
I have a lot of sympathy for the really needy element, but this is why we have a social security system in this country. Let’s not forget the scourge of the earth tenants who simply play the system, well known to virtually everyone now a days, to their advantage to live rent free.
I am moving to a country where if the tenant doesn’t pay their rent the landlord, with the police blessing, is entitled to lock the doors with the tenants possessions inside until the cash turns up. I hardly think our lot have it so bad really…..
Even those heavily regulated utilities suppliers simply change their meters to token such that these disadvantaged residents have to sit in the cold and dark until they find some cash.
My final comment also, stop campaigning to hammer the PRS to solve what is a national issue and start on the SYSTEM in this country to make it fair and equitable on all parties, i.e all parties should put their hand in their pocket through the tax system, not just the PRS LL….
Romain says
It is interesting that insurers and lenders have clauses against DSS tenants. Instead of lobbying to have these removed, I think it would be useful to first understand why they have such clauses.
Indeed, the core job of an insurance company is to assess risk. They have very smart actuarial people who shift through statistics and build models all day long in order to work out risk.
Therefore, I would think that if they put a clause against DSS tenants in their policies they must have a reason.
Likewise for lenders.
IMO, insurance restrictions are always enlightening.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
But Ian, isnt this the whole point? That a landlord finds it hard to enforce a CCJ against a sefl-employed person I do understand but this leaves a load of ordinary, hard working stiffs unable to find accommodation as landlords go for the safest bet. It isnt just a no DSS issue
And we need to get away from this pigeonholing of social housing being for people on benefits and the PRS being occupied by shop workers. Due to the housing crisis on all levels PRS tenants are now older families, the elderly, Police, doctors etc. My neighbours rent and they are a couple of bankers and a doctor, unable to buy.
Its a myth that people rent by choice across the board. Every tenant I know absolutely hates it. The lack of security, the poor conditions and in the capital paying 65% – 79% of your income on rent while landlords laugh all the way to the bank
Jayne says
I am a single mum of two teenage children. I work part time which unfortunately does not pay enough for me to afford the rent for a house big enough for 3 people. I had to sell my house as my ex husband refused to remain on the mortgage with me and although I could have afforded to pay the mortgage myself, on paper I was a risk and I was forced to sell our home. Stupidly the rent I now have to pay on a smaller house is twice what my mortgage payments were. I therefore have to claim housing benefit which covers 50% of the monthly rent.
I love this house, it is full of our own furniture and our pets and although I don’t own it and cannot decorate it, it is our home.
My housing benefit is paid directly to my bank account once a fortnight and once I’ve added my own contribution to make up the shortfall, I pay my landlady directly into her bank account every month without fail.
Being discriminated against as a housing benefit claimant when I was looking for a home was soul destroying. I had gone from a home owner to someone that no one wanted to rent to in the space of a week. The stress it put on me and my family was enormous.
I know everyone is different, circumstances are varied as to why someone may be on benefit, but a more personal approach into background or financial history, rather than a general whitewash of excluding anyone on housing benefit would be very welcome.
I would be terrified of trying to move again now, as regardless of my work history or excellent credit rating, I know I would be refused even a conversation about a property once I disclose that I claim housing benefit.
Ben Reeve-Lewis says
Jayne here, here. I feel for you.
I spent from 2009 – 2013 defending mortgage repossession cases, literally hundreds of people who maybe a few months before had been graphic designers, accountants, running their own business, bank staff, even a doctor I seem to recall. None of whom ever thought they would end up in a homelessness unit.
Some people I’ve dealt with were screwed on the references front for past bankruptcy who were otherwise more than solvent since then. Perhaps earning good wages now but whose credit rating was shot for previous circumstances that were either beyond their control or who had simply made a mistake.
Placing what is effectively a blanket ban on DSS and people with poor credit history is ludicrous.
Look at landlords who complain about nightmare tenants in huge arrears, presumably most of them passed standard credit checks to get in and yet look at the results.
HB Welcome says
So in Jayne’s example, a bank has decided she is too high a risk, even with the security of the house to fall back on.
Yet a landlord is unreasonable for not letting to her at twice the risk with even less security?
It is not discrimination, it is about managing risk.
Bob T says
My tenant has been supported by St Albans council for rent payments for several years. I have always been open and said I will be looking to end the tenancy this summer but am now being told that St Albans Council are insisting that they won’t do anything for the tenant unless she stays in place until the arrival of bailiffs. All required notice periods and paperwork have been put in place.
This one point means that I will never, ever have a council supported tenant again and I would advise anyone else similarly.
JT says
The problem with Digs and other similar tenant pressure groups, is that they cannot see past their own personal situation and fail to understand the mechanics of the market as a whole. In fact it is clear from the article that they do not even understand the legal framework in relation to landlord and tenant law.
Peter says
A few years ago I inherited some money then lost my job. I was in my mid 50s with skills that are nearly obsolete. I bought some properties to provide some income so that I could come off benefits. As this is my only income I took a very cautious approach, which meant “no DSS”. From what I read dealing with tenants on benefits can be profitable, but requires special skills. As I didn’t have any experience at all of being a LL I wanted to start with the simplest form. From what I have learned since then I still don’t want tenants on benefits – mainly because of the way councils behave.
The properties I have bought have been in the NW where house prices and rents barely move compared to the South. There is also no shortage of housing and good quality 2 bed houses can be bought for under £90k.
JT says
Good post Peter. That is the other Perennial problem with these tenant pressure groups – they are virtually all focussed on London which is completely different to rest of the UK and yet they inevitably end up shaping policy for the rest of us.
paul canton says
I am a landlord, I have found DSS tenants to be perfectly decent people who need some help to get by……….but I no longer rent to DSS as dealing with councils is so annoying. Never the same person, no trace of previous calls or emails, not a clue about the property or tenant………like dealing with a goldfish.
diane says
I have been a landlord for nine years now and not had any real problems I have a mixture of both tenants DSS as well as employed maybe I’ve been lucky I’ve got one tenant that has some problems with the DSS and was unable to pay her rent for about 3 months due to the fact there was a small change in her circumstances she filled in the appropriate forms sent them and waiting to hear back from the social contacting them after the first two weeks they say well we got a lot to deal with at the moment but we will get back to you after the six weeks she rang them up again to find out that thay have not received them and have to start all over again she did receive her money backdated so happy ending for both of us the main thing being a landlord in my opinion is been able to make contact and been helpful and supportive and a mutual understanding and a good communication but lots of landlords that take DSS on more so now because the wisdom of our government rather than sending the money directly to the landlord they send it to the tenant which obviously didn’t help some tenants that was having difficulties managing money .and with the 2016 regulations coming in concerning landlords on taxed before profits will only create more problems because some landlords will have no choice but to sell and these people will have to go to the council to look for accommodation and we all know that is almost impossible and all landlords now unemployed people as well as average wage workers cannot afford the rents to increase has a lot of people are struggling as it is everyone knows this by the members of Parliament I really believe they haven’t got a clue or they just don’t care as long as it doesn’t affect them and can get the tax every year they put up the tax have you noticed it’s always for the same reasons so where does his tax money gone as hospital schools Healthcare has only got worse I believe that the government should be monitored to where the money goes handmade responsible
diane says
Osborne has got his head so far up cameras buttocks he can’t see daylight and realise it’s only the low paid families that will suffer that’s going to lose their house or less food on the table So they can afford the increase in rent .or to do more overtime at work as if life isn’t hard enough. all this misery just for a tax grab the government loves using the word moral but what happened to it when they was caught with the hands in taxpayers money claiming expenses on their own properties and and Property flipping .taxis go up every year for the taxpayer but nothing is ever improved the hospital waiting list is longer not improvement in education or school facilities so where does the tax money go to ? who monitors to see where all the extra tax money goes?
K Pearson says
We let to tenants on benefits on a case by case basis. We evaluate them as individuals by meeting with them, doing a credit search for unpaid CCJs and now also ask for a guarantor. Mostly by following these procedures we have excellent tenants and no problems.
We now can’t ask for HB to be paid directly to us from the start as we once did, but have to wait for 8 weeks arrears and even then it can be difficult. I have experienced mostly poor and unhelpful attitudes from staff when I’ve been forced to call (something I try to avoid as I know it will make me cross!).
Recently I put up the rents in our one bedroom flats which hadn’t gone up for 8 years, there were four housing benefits claimants affected. I wrote to the council in October giving notice of the increase to begin in December. By January (HB are paid in arrears), the increases had not been actioned. With agitation I managed to get three increased by March with back payment, but one claimant is still going through the ringer trying to get an increase and being told there will be no back payment! He is a long-term claimant with some disability and I think this is the problem as he is on the old system, but even now when he is being switched to the new LHA system to allow him to claim more his allowance is still well below the published entitlement and keeps being told to call back in another 10 days!
He is a good tenant and been with us 16 years so I will be patient, however the system totally sucks! He doesn’t understand what he is being told and they won’t speak to me. They wonder why people don’t want to take this stuff on willingly!!! It won’t put us off taking these tenants as it’s not actually his fault, he’s doing his best and by being careful who we accept we have minimal trouble with defaulting or difficult tenants, in fact one of the biggest nuisances for late rent payments we have is a working tenant who is unable to manage his finances, we’ve just found Eon have broken into the meter cupboard and put in a pre-payment meter and I have to call and email him half a dozen times per month and have him constantly on threat of applying our repossession order just to get the months rent out of him…too much work for just one guy!
M says
Women who have very young children and are left by their partners are condemned to homelessness, specially if they re not married.
Doesn’t matter if they claim benefits and get them. Doesn’t matter if they have a part-time job. If landlords/society/agencies/councils/all of the above don’t start changing things, that’s our only destination: Homelessness.
We can’t work full time because we have to look after the children (childcare costs more than you can make working). We can’t rent properties because we need the benefits to survive and “Sorry no DSS”. We can’t not take care of our children because it’s ilegal. We have no other way than homelessness from the moment the couple decides to break up (even if it is for abusive reasons!).
Does anyone think of the pressure, stress, guilty/failure feelings that go trough us when we see ourselves and our children becoming homeless? And specially if we have been in a difficult relationship? Not to mention that because of becoming homeless our credit check won’t be clean for the next 6 years, which again won’t allow us to rent a property.
Condemned to poverty. How can that be fair? How can that be legal? How can that be socially accepted?
Tessa Shepperson says
That is very true and it is outrageous. However that is why we need to have more social housing.
You can’t really expect ordinary individuals who have bought a property to rent as an investment to take a risk on someone, however sad their story and however meritorious. See this blog post here where someone did just that http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2012/10/09/evicting-housing-benefit-tenants-kates-story/
It is the role of government to provide social housing – but it is not. It is selling our social housing off instead. THAT is the problem.
Kevin M says
As an agent, we do accept DSS but only as the immediate area is largely made up of individuals receiving DSS. We do experience an awful lot of problems and we have discussed on many occasions whether it is time to stop.
I must stress that we do not have any issues with the majority of DSS tenants themselves and most of our problems are actually down to the council. There are a lot more problems with rent arrears for our DSS properties than our other properties.
The main issues we find are:
1- When a tenant signs a tenancy agreement (regardless of whether they are receiving DSS or not) they are responsible for ensuring the rent is paid, even if the council fails to pay. However, we find that when the council suspend claims, cancel claims or underpay, the majority of DSS tenants (in our experience!) refuse to pay the rent as they say “it is the council’s problem, not mine”. When actually it is the complete opposite, it is most certainly the tenant’s problem as they have signed a legal document promising to pay rent.
2- The Council staff are incredibly rude and dismissive and do not like talking to agents or landlords. I find this unbelievable considering these agents and landlords are the people that are actually housing the tenants receiving DSS. In a lot of cases, the problems could be resolved is the council workers had a better attitude.
3- The amount of clawbacks we receive is astronomical. Every month we have a new stack of clawbacks whereby a tenant has failed to disclose something and then they demand payment from us!
4- Enforcing money judgments is almost impossible for tenant’s receiving DSS.
5- We have hundreds of suspended claims to deal with on a daily basis which takes up a huge amount of time to deal with. The council take an average of 40 to 45 minutes (truthfully!) to answer the telephone for each claim and then sometimes they simply hang up after 45 mins or refuse to discuss the claim which completely infuriates us. Again, if they were more helpful and had a better attitude, we could simply find out what needs to be done and then help the tenant to sort it out.
6- If a landlord needs their property back, the Councils are currently advising some DSS tenants to “ignore” notices and stay until the bailiff arrives. I have heard recently that this might be changing but until that time comes, this is a big factor when considering a tenant that is reliant on the council.
7- The council will not currently make direct payments to agents or landlords without the tenant being at least “8 weeks” in arrears. Enfield council simply state “the 8 week rule has not been satisifed and so we are not paying directly to you”.
8- The council will request certain documentation from the tenant and if they do not receive a reply within a certain amount of time, they cancel the claim and make the tenant re-apply for benefits. I have had numerous tenants that swear blind they never received the request for information from the council and the council did not send out a 2nd request. So they still have to re-apply for benefits and then the landlord wants to evict them as it takes too long.
My point is that (in my opinion!) the councils create A LOT of unneccesary problems for us and sometimes it does feel like it would be easier all round to just knock it on the head so that we don’t have to deal with the constant rudeness and headache.
If the councils were more cooperative with the people that are willing to house DSS tenants, I am sure that more people would be happy to house them.
Everything stated is from my own personal experience which you may or may not agree with, but it is the truth nonetheless.
Tessa Shepperson says
@Kevin M – I believe you and it fits with what a lot of other letting agents and landlords say to us.
I appreciate that Local Authorities have their own problems and issues but it does seem as to some extent, many of them are the author of their own problems. As in – if they gave a better service, more landlords and agents would be willing to work with them.
HB Welcome says
Bang on Kevin.
Councils are a major part of the problem.
The conclusion I’ve come to is they purposely (either as direct policy or subconsciously) create obfuscation to show how essential they are and how hard they are ‘working’.
On a positive note, I’ve just had £2000 worth of ‘A’ rated boiler all for free in one of my properties under the ECO scheme -because the tenants are on Housing Benefit.