8:45 AM, 5th March 2019, About 3 years ago 13
There has been much talk in recent media about landlords and letting agents discriminating against tenants who claim benefits for housing.
I don’t think that is the case at all, these landlords and their agents are simply refusing to hand they keys of their valuable assets to people who present a high risk. Would you give the keys to your car to a 17 year old driver if he was awaiting trial for stealing and writing off cars? Of course you wouldn’t, because you know your insurers would not take that risk so why should you?!
The same goes for people who cannot afford to pay rent, or at least do not pass referencing checks to a sufficient level for a rent Guarantee Insurance company to be prepared to underwrite the risk of non-payment of rent.
I don’t see how refusing to rent property to anybody who fails to meet the referencing standards of a Rent Guarantee Insurance company could be called discrimination. That would be like saying that landlords also discriminate against people with a string of credit defaults, bankruptcy, criminal records. If that’s discrimination, why is it that finance providers and insurance companies are allowed to discriminate based on credit profile and/or other associated risks? Logic says that we should operate on a level playing field, and so if renting to a person who is clearly a risk was to become law, then I do not see how that would be any different to compelling finance providers to lend money to any person who wanted to buy any home or car of their choice and also compelling insurance companies underwrite those risks, even if the applicant was an unemployed bankrupt arsonist who has just been released from prison.
Am I missing the point?
Previous Article‘No DSS’ adverts in the private rented sector