View Full Version : 'No DSS' Discrimination?
Landlords frequently say 'No DSS' when advertising their property for let. But should the term be as unlawful as 'No Gays' and 'No Blacks'?
The Scottish Green Party are raising awareness of this discrimination
GREENS SEEK BAN ON 'NO DSS' DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TENANTS
Green MSP Patrick Harvie has called on letting agents, giving evidence at
Holyrood today, to end discrimination against those on housing benefits. The
outdated term 'No DSS' is still in common use in advertisements for private
rented accommodation by both letting agents and individual landlords. (1)
The Scottish Government's Housing Bill will regulate letting agents for the
first time, and the Greens want the new Code of Practice, which will be required
by law, to rule out these blanket bans on recipients of housing benefit.
They also want to see more action to encourage individual landlords to end the
practice. Mr Harvie has written to the popular website Gumtree to ask it to take
action to stop landlords advertising in this way on their site.
According to the DWP, there are almost 100,000 recipients of housing benefit in
the private rented sector in Scotland. (2)
Patrick Harvie, Green MSP said:
"Ruling out tenants who might need housing benefit is outdated discrimination
that needs to end. It should not be acceptable for professional letting agents
to stigmatise a large section of our society in this way.
"With the dramatic growth in the number of people renting privately, and big
changes to the welfare system taking place, now is the time to secure a better
deal for tenants. I will push the Scottish Government to improve their Housing
Bill to make private renting the secure, affordable choice that it should be."
cazmanian_minx
10-Feb-14, 18:22
If the landlord has a mortgage on the property, it's usually a condition of the mortgage that the property isn't let to a tenant in receipt of housing benefit - they'll need to target the lenders as well as the landlords.
RagnarRocks
10-Feb-14, 18:29
I agree with cazmanian when I used to do Mortgages the vast majority of buy to let mortgages had part of the conditions that it was no DSS
12 years ago I had a private let and was working. The company went bust and i had to claim benefit for a short while. The council contacted the landlord who then flew round and promptly gave me 1 months notice to quit (rolling 1-month tenancy agreement) All because i was claiming housing benefit!. He had no cause to complain through the previous 2 years and i was no different a person other than being jobless. I even offered to have the council pay him directly but he refused. It looked to me like the money wasn't being declared to the taxman!.
These landlords act as though they own the place!
These landlords act as though they own the place!
Strangely enough..........
On another note, i've also had a landlord put the rent up just because the local council raised the local housing allowance level. Greed by private landlords will always be there and sub-standard accommodation will still be offered until there is a full and proper register of all private landlords. The few good landlords i've had (present one included) have been great. No hassle, yearly checks on the safety certificates and if there's a problem, immediate remedial action without any moans.
2005 I had a work contract in Grimsby so needed a house quick and for 6 months. I moved in to a house with steel framed single glazed windows, a coal fire in the living room, a boiler for hot water on the kitchen wall and the same in the bathroom. It was an old and very cold house but it did the job. Then when i was changing a bulb i was electrocuted. The wiring was so old (brown braided twin twisted copper) the landlord just taped it up with electrical tape and the bakelite switches on the wall were crumbling. The switch was faulty and the bulb popping was just a coincidence unfortunately for me. Even though the switch was off at the wall, the socket was still live and with the wiring being so old, when i moved the light socket, it snapped and caught my finger and i was promptly propelled backwards through the kitchen door. I was treated at the hospital for shock and bruising. I phoned the letting agent to complain the following day and to tell them i had been electrocuted. They didn't believe me and asked for a doctor's report and from then on, i was treated like a leper.
I got my own back by calling in the council inspector who went to town on the letting agent. The house got new double glazed windows, gas central heating and was fully rewired. The letting agent was whingeing at me saying the landlord was giving him grief and wanted more rent to help cover the costs but i refused and stuck it out for the remainder of the 6 months contract.
The coup de grace was when Grimsby council then decided 6 months later that the houses had to go, slapped compulsory purchase orders on and demolished the whole street (Guildford Street)....just a few months after the landlord spent over £5k sorting out the old place. When i heard the landlord was fighting for more money than the council were offering i laughed so hard.......comeuppance is sweet!
KEEP_ON_TRUCKIN
10-Feb-14, 20:58
I have had tenants since 2003.
I have never said NO DSS . NOW I will not take DSS.
In 2012 I took on a DSS tenant - he has trashed my flat , owes me £100's of pounds and probably cost £1000s in damages which I am currently clearing up.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt - he was a carer and this is why he was on DSS. But never again.
Absolute low life!
I have had tenants since 2003.
I have never said NO DSS . NOW I will not take DSS.
In 2012 I took on a DSS tenant - he has trashed my flat , owes me £100's of pounds and probably cost £1000s in damages which I am currently clearing up.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt - he was a carer and this is why he was on DSS. But never again.
Absolute low life!
And that is why good landlords that offer quality accomodation are often unable to risk DSS tennents. I'm sure there are more stories like this than actually happens but why take the risk with your investment? You are a business not a charity.
I have had tenants since 2003.
I have never said NO DSS . NOW I will not take DSS.
In 2012 I took on a DSS tenant - he has trashed my flat , owes me £100's of pounds and probably cost £1000s in damages which I am currently clearing up.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt - he was a carer and this is why he was on DSS. But never again.
Absolute low life!
The brilliant Green "party" want to compel you to accept tenants whom you expect to pish in the grate.
i have had had a few private lets and some i have left in better condition than what i got them, im on incapacity no fault of my own, the way i look at it they are good enough to give you a house you should keep it in good condition, but some don't that's including folk who work to, there was a couple next to me who worked they trashed the place and done a midnight flit
RagnarRocks
10-Feb-14, 23:24
They can make it illegal all landlords will do is ask where you work and a reference and if you're on DSS you won't get a look in. For every rule they make people will find a way around it.
Insurance is also 4x as much and has much higher excess.
Isn't there an insurance scheme for landlords to cover damage by bad tenants?
A possible solution is to hold those who give fake references either partly or wholly responsible for any damage or neglect. Similar to a guarantor on a debt. That would soon stop the false references and trashed houses because basically the landlord is taking on a tenant with a "good standing" whereas the truth is otherwise.
As i said earlier though, a proper register for Landlords, a shame list for bad tenants and all overseen by the council would be a good start. That way you have all the landlords together and they can share info about good and bad tenants.
There are many people homeless through no fault of their own and they don't deserve to be and tarring them with the same brush as doleys who trash houses is truly unjust
Or.... Scrap the Bedroom Tax, Build more Council houses, end the reliance on Private Landlords for many of those in need of rented accomodation.
Southern-Gal
10-Feb-14, 23:59
A condition of having landlords insurance with NFU is that the tenant is not on benefits.
Landlords maybe do not have much choice even if they wanted to take in DSS tenants?
A previous landlord i used gets a prospective tenant to sign pictures of the interior of the house before they take on a tenancy, that way should any issues arise at the end of the tenancy he has 100% photographic proof. Fair wear and tear is acceptable but when there are items broken and the tenant claims they were like that when he moved in, out come the pics with his signature on them to prove otherwise. It has saved him a lot of money he told me and it's not the first time a prospective tenant has refused to sign them and walked away from taking the tenancy.
Kevin Milkins
11-Feb-14, 00:32
There are good landlords and bad landlords, also good tenants and bad tenants, regardless of work status.
A condition of having landlords insurance with NFU is that the tenant is not on benefits.
Landlords maybe do not have much choice even if they wanted to take in DSS tenants?
And that is the whole point. There should be no conditions at any level. Why should DSS families be denied access to accomodation due to the fact of their personal status?
The biggest problem I've found with Private Landlords is that they will rarely rent a property unfurnished so you end up with the place cluttered with their rubbish (& when I say rubbish it usually is) & all because they can charge more rent for a "Furnished" place.
One place I rented I ended up with their couch crammed upright in a hall cupboard just so that I could get something decent to sit on.
We should have a system similar to what they have in Australia.... If the landlord wants to leave the furniture there they effectively have to pay the tenant for Storage, bringing the rent down, making it easier to find an unfurnished place, then if the furniture gets wrecked it's your own furniture to wreck.
It is easier to get a bad tenant out with a furnished house than an unfurnished house...less stuff to turf out if need be...
If mortguage comps and insurance comps charge more for DSS people until they turn around their thinking and way of life there is no chance for decent people needing benefits to get a private let as it costs the the person letting the property a considerable amount more plus more paperwork which in turn costs them more!...doesnt matter if they are good or bad tenants...it comes down to cost ..as a business it pays better to get more for less effort!...so unless the government makes it easier for decent people on benefits to obtain private rentals, it wont happen!
Kevin Milkins
11-Feb-14, 01:27
An elderly man that I used to help out years ago with his garden etc. gave me some advice that I held onto, he said, "get yourself under cover and look after it as the rest of your good fortune will follow". A very simple rule of life, but one that I carry to this day. We have rented a few property's in our time and will never be accused of leaving them in worse condition than I took them on and I would like to think that we always left them in better condition.
This is a really unfair situation and the Green Party are right to try to do something about it. The solution really is better and more social housing but a private sector without rent controls or social responsibility will be with us for the foreseeable future and we need to tackle this now.
Southern-Gal
11-Feb-14, 09:40
And that is the whole point. There should be no conditions at any level. Why should DSS families be denied access to accomodation due to the fact of their personal status?
It does not state no DSS.
It states they cant be 'on benefits'. This is probably near impossible as 'on benefits' could include child benefit and tax credits.
Most people looking to rent will have a child I should think?
So many Landlords won't accept families with children anyway. The social housing companies are just as guilty of discriminating against tenants when they say that a particular house is only for a pensioner or only for a couple or it's a quiet area and thus no family with children will be considered. End of the day a landlord has the right to say who can and who cannot rent it from them. If they want to sit on an empty house and lose income then that's their problem, leave them to it i say!
RagnarRocks
11-Feb-14, 10:32
This is a really unfair situation and the Green Party are right to try to do something about it. The solution really is better and more social housing but a private sector without rent controls or social responsibility will be with us for the foreseeable future and we need to tackle this now.I agree Comrade when is the Politburo open so we can ensure that these imperialists can have the state control their business's for them, how dare they run a business without state interference and try to make money.
RagnarRocks
11-Feb-14, 10:37
It does not state no DSS.It states they cant be 'on benefits'. This is probably near impossible as 'on benefits' could include child benefit and tax credits.Most people looking to rent will have a child I should think?Oh it's quite clear in the terms and conditions of most buy to let mortgages " No DSS" I've signed up many buy to let mortgages the vast majority where normal people who released some equity from their own property to try and build a bit of a nest egg for future years, I've come across a few professional landlords in my time but they tend to buy very cheap properties and usually for cash.
Oh dear Ragnar you once again fall into the trap of assing that because I and others can see a need, a problem that needs to be resolved, that I do not want people to make money. This is so lazy of you and really, for someone who has travelled the world as you like to remind us often, so insular. People need housing. This is preventing people accessing good hpusing and, although you seem to think that health inequalities are caused by people eating deep fried mars bars, poor housing is actually a contributor to poor health. If you want a healthy workforce then you need to improve housing. To get people into work they need to have a roof over their head, it therefore maked sense to ensure the housing market is accessible to all, by building more social housing and by removing discrimatory practices from the market place. Do you have any other ideas? Better ones or are you just sniping from the fortunate position of having a roof over your head?
Having worked in the property sector for quite a few years, including social housing, I'm afraid the stigma for 'DSS' tenants being irresponsible or downright vandals does fit in the greater number of cases. Certainly where the tenants are less than 40 or / and have children.
Totally agree more social housing is needed, council houses shouldn't have been sold off in the first place. I think it is a shame modern throw away society seems to have rubbed off onto the housing market, trash the house because you really don't give a dam, run up all the bills then hop it, its ok because you can just get another one to do the same to. Its not fair at all on any landlord. Tennants of any kind should be responsible for damage caused. Private landlords quite rightly so, should be allowed to vet their tennents however they please, after all it is their property. Social housing should be a wee bit more forgiving in letting to the unknown but they should be keeping an eye on how their tennents are getting on with inspections say bi monthly to sort out teething problems either might be having initially. Relaxing inspections when the tennent proves they are reliable.
Having worked in the property sector for quite a few years, including social housing, I'm afraid the stigma for 'DSS' tenants being irresponsible or downright vandals does fit in the greater number of cases. Certainly where the tenants are less than 40 or / and have children.That's my point too, younger people with no respect for anything. I'm certainly not tarring all of the younger generation with the same brush but there is definitely more that are disrespectful.
RagnarRocks
11-Feb-14, 11:53
Well yes I am fortunate at having worked hard all my life and forgone certain pleasures that I have a fully paid roof over my head. But I'm not being lazy it is not the private sectors jobs to cure all social ills, your suggestion is to enforce rent capping on a private market. Respectfully I suggest that councils build more social housing the two are not the same and not interchangeable also there should be some assessing of those in social housing to ensure that people on good salaries aren't abusing the system and living in properties which should be used for those less well off. I suggest it is you who are the lazy one trying to foist socialist programmes on a free market instead of separating the market and the governments responsibilities. The same with health care there is room for improvement and room for private healthcare its a shame that far too much money is wasted on top down management trying to hit silly targets than genuine patient care and employing more nurses and doctors. But this probably won't sit well with your regulate everything and let the state take care of me mentality. From my experiences of through life dealing with various government depts and councils, where they overlap,the private sector invariably comes in cheaper and does a better job in a shorter period of time.
I've come across a few professional landlords in my time but they tend to buy very cheap properties and usually for cash.One major problem is some of these ‘professional’ landlords are really just ‘slum’ landlords, those that rent out crap properties to crap tenants. And they reap what they sow, creating a vicious circle of easy cash from bad tenants who often move on quickly, leaving a property needing repairs that it doesn’t get.
I would propose investment in a Social Housing system privately run in a commercial aspect. I moved from the private sector into social / public sector housing and I was utterly gobsmacked at the money that was being haemorrhaged. And this was replicated by councils and trusts I worked with across many counties.
Using Govt money & working with local councils to obtain land / disused property for development, create 70/30 social to private building projects.
Cap / subsidise rents for social side inline with national averages. Run the schemes to turn profit on servicing (to reinvest), allow right to buy but income must be reinvested in new property.
Force trusts & councils to increase regular visits to ensure tenants are looking after property & act swiftly where they find agreements not being met. But give all councils, trusts etc. teeth and if necessary new laws / regulation to enforce cost recovery from tenants.
Start a National register of both landlords & tenants, where tenants can become ‘approved’ which could help sensible ‘DSS’ tenants and possibly lower deposits etc.
Aye, there's an ideal spot up Ormlie way. Could build 40-50 houses on there easily but Tesco might have a whinge!
Kevin Milkins
11-Feb-14, 12:43
Aye, there's an ideal spot up Ormlie way. Could build 40-50 houses on there easily but Tesco might have a whinge!
Why would Tesco have a whinge? as long as it stopped Asda coming to Caithness it would be an answer to an on going problem for them and would yield profit on their investment.
Southern-Gal
11-Feb-14, 12:48
Maybe there should be a scheme for landlords who will accept young families and people on benefits? A top up of rent paid directly to them to cover for such losses or maybe free insurance against the losses incurred if it does happen?
I certainly think that if there was some sort of guarantee for landlords direct from the DSS which is tied to the tenants benefits that tenants would be more considerate tenants if they were risking their income being cut back or fined :)
Why would Tesco have a whinge? as long as it stopped Asda coming to Caithness it would be an answer to an on going problem for them and would yield profit on their investment.
Thought ASDA wanted to build on Pennyland, not Ormlie? Although there hasn't been anything more on the plans since, i'm sure it won't stop ASDA opening up if they wanted to.
Tesco should either build now or let the land go and as there is a great need for affordable/social homes in the area then the council should force Tesco's hand.
RagnarRocks
11-Feb-14, 13:19
Part of the problem is that landlords don't receive the payments direct, what happens is those who are likely to be bad tenants now get the money and spend it rather than give it to the landlord. I accept that there are bad landlords out there who supply sub standard accommodation but the current situation means a bad situation is getting worse and whilst there is lots of finger pointing from me side to the other, the decent tenants and decent landlords end up as the meat in the sandwich.
The councils themselves have a lot to answer for by creating instant landlords through selling off their housing stock on the cheap via the "right to buy" scheme. Many tenants saw this as a godsend and it gave them a house they could afford and some semblance of security but equally just as many, if not more, people bought purely so they could rent it out and rake in the cash.
I know one woman in Wick who wastes no time in telling people that several years ago, she "split" from her husband and claimed homelessness in order to get a council house. Once she was eligible to buy it, she did so and within a couple of months was back with her partner and started to rent it out. She then added that she already owns several houses with her husband and they make a comfortable side-income from them as they are both employed.
Part of the problem is that landlords don't receive the payments direct, what happens is those who are likely to be bad tenants now get the money and spend it rather than give it to the landlord. I accept that there are bad landlords out there who supply sub standard accommodation but the current situation means a bad situation is getting worse and whilst there is lots of finger pointing from me side to the other, the decent tenants and decent landlords end up as the meat in the sandwich.
It used to be that the cash went direct to the landlords but so many landlords were inventing phantom tenants or claiming for tenants who had moved on that they thought it was easier and cheaper just to pay the tenant direct, thus they could keep tabs on them. You can still get the cash paid to the landlord but only if there are mitigating circumstances such as an incapacity or illness that affects your day to day living.
RagnarRocks
11-Feb-14, 14:01
Crikey well I never dishonest landlords, dishonest tenants what's the world coming to. Looks like we should start renting out tents gaz must be a market :0))
I certainly don't think private landlords should have a scheme of protection linking to benefits payments. Its their house take responsibility to ensure tennants keep within their aggrements, why should government help out for private profiteering? Social housing on the other hand should have more strict guidelines & cheaper rents that go along with it. Perhaps a 3 strike rule & then your right to social housing terminated. How many times do you see good council houses being repeatedly trashed & then the same Tennant gets a new refurbished one? If there were stricter rules, that when they were broken, consequences would follow. The people who do look after them would benefit with an affordable home & reliable landlord. Word would soon get around to respect your home.
Southern-Gal
11-Feb-14, 19:10
Yes but if private landlords were willing to rent out their property more affordably and in line with council house rents then surely they should get some incentive?
One of the reasons they need extortionate rents must be to cover themselves if they get a bad tenant.
Yes but if private landlords were willing to rent out their property more affordably and in line with council house rents then surely they should get some incentive?One of the reasons they need extortionate rents must be to cover themselves if they get a bad tenant.There is nothing to stop a private landlord reducing rents in line with council to get a Tennant. Why should a private landlord receive a benefit on profiteering on an additional home? Presumably its a business renting out, treat it as one. If the rent received from a property does not cover its own costs then you have your answer.
[QUOTE=Southern-Gal;1069668]Yes but if private landlords were willing to rent out their property more affordably and in line with council house rents then surely they should get some incentive?
One of the reasons they need extortionate rents must be to cover themselves if they get a bad tenant.[/QUOTE
No, extortionate rents are just down to greedy landlords, end of! There is absolutely no need to ask for more than the current market rent for any letting and there are measures (i.e rent tribunal) to ensure that this does not happen but how many tenants know this and get ripped off?
Extortionate rents are nothing whatsoever to do with having bad tenants because i'm sure once a landlord is hit by a bad tenant, he sure as hell will try his damnedest to make sure it won't happen again!
As for not wanting DSS tenants, why do you think a lot of rents are so high in the first place? Knowing full well that the rent asked is higher than the local housing allowance is more than enough to put many DSS tenants off because it means them using part of their benefits to pay towards the rent. On the other side of the coin, i cannot see where some landlords get the rent prices from? plucked from thin air on some houses i see for rent round here. I mean,Come on, £500 a month for a two bed house in Thurso? Even a working family will struggle to pay that amount! We aren't living in Dounreay prosperity times anymore. Get real!
Thought ASDA wanted to build on Pennyland, not Ormlie? Although there hasn't been anything more on the plans since, i'm sure it won't stop ASDA opening up if they wanted to.
Tesco should either build now or let the land go and as there is a great need for affordable/social homes in the area then the council should force Tesco's hand. Highland Council are so far in Tesco`s back pocket so that would never happen.
RagnarRocks
11-Feb-14, 20:26
Most lenders for buy to let mortgages have a calculation to see whether its profitable enough to sustain the payments which used to be 125% of the mortgage which is an interest only mortgage then it dropped to 115% followed by 110% then 100% assuming that the landlord would make a profit on the increasing value of the property alas the financial crisis put pay to that so its probably back up to 125% now.
newweecroft
11-Feb-14, 21:39
Its just a shame that there is no differentiation between benefit scroungers and the disabled.
cazmanian_minx
11-Feb-14, 21:50
Yup, generally back up to 125% of the interest-only amount of the mortgage, plus 25% or more deposit and arrangement fees of up to 2.49% for the best interest rates.
Its just a shame that there is no differentiation between benefit scroungers and the disabled.
Oh there is really. Disabled in extreme cases cannot help themselves, in minor cases, they just need a little helping hand....Benefit scroungers however help themselves and take every helping hand they can get. It's because of this take, take, take attitude that the genuine disabled and unemployed are now suffering at the hands of ATOS. All i hear in the news is how they are deciding that heart-attack victims, blind people, multiple sclerosis sufferers etc etc are being classed as fit to work when they clearly aren't yet NOWHERE in the news have i seen anything about a feckless scrounger being told to get off his butt and get to work after being classed as fit for work by ATOS? figure that one out!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.