Discrimination in the rental sector

Discrimination in the rental sector

8:30 AM, 22nd August 2018, About 3 years ago 78

Text Size

David Cox, Chief Executive, ARLA Propertymark comments on the story from Shelter and National Housing Federation about discrimination in the rental sector:

“This is a systemic problem with how housing benefit works. Rents are paid in advance, whereas housing benefit is paid in arrears, and therefore with such a shortage of rental accommodation, landlords and agents will naturally choose a tenant who can pay the rent when it is due, rather than a tenant who is always a month in arrears.

“We have called on Government time and time again to resolve this problem. But our calls have fallen on deaf ears. To make the situation worse, many lenders also have a clause in their buy-to-let mortgage agreements which prevent landlords from letting to housing benefit tenants. This situation does not exist because of landlords or letting agents, it is a systemic problem caused by Government and the banks.”

Click Here to view the campaign by the National Housing Federation and Shelter:

“People receiving benefits are often locked out of the private rented sector and openly discriminated against by private landlords and estate agent adverts, who specify ‘no DSS’ or ‘no housing benefit’.

We’re partnering with Shelter on a new campaign, making the case that private landlords and letting agents shouldn’t be allowed to do this.”

“Many housing associations were set up in the 1950s and 1960s to house people who could find nowhere else to live due to racism from private landlords and letting agents who told them no Irish, no blacks, no dogs. Fast-forward to 2018 and we still have outright bans, this time because people depend on Housing Benefit. We believe this is not right and must stop.

So together, with Shelter, we’re calling for landlords and letting agents to see sense and assess people on a case by case basis, not through policy bans, and for the Government to urgently invest in the building of new affordable housing.”


by Sam

8:35 AM, 26th August 2018, About 3 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 22/08/2018 - 10:11
Thank you Ian

by Seething Landlord

16:31 PM, 26th August 2018, About 3 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 25/08/2018 - 13:56
All it proves is that the claimant had sufficient confidence to bring the claim and that as you suggest the defendant thought it prudent to settle rather than fight. The fact remains that Shelter are ratcheting up the pressure and as was evident from the televised discussion will make much of the impact of a blanket ban on the disabled, who are largely dependant on benefits. We can already see the NLA, RLA and Haart (who were heavily criticised in the investigation) distancing themselves from the practice of having an outright ban on "DSS applicants".

by David Lawrenson

8:57 AM, 27th August 2018, About 3 years ago

We called out the issue of lenders not allowing landlords to let to people on housing benefit years ago at the Mayor's office.
Natch, it was news to the politicos there!
After we had given our evidence (to the Mayor's Housing and Regeneration Committee) and it was published, the Nationwide rather pooped themselves and did a suddenly about turn, as did BM.
Read about it here.
So this is not a new issue, but well done to Shelter for finally catching up and making it news.
David Lawrenson
Private Rented Sector Consulting and Advice

by Monty Bodkin

9:54 AM, 27th August 2018, About 3 years ago

Reply to the comment left by David Lawrenson at 27/08/2018 - 08:57
Nationwide and LLoyds group did an about turn because of the bad publicity, nothing to do with any legal argument.

Lenders imposed this restriction for sound financial reasons
-and those reasons are getting stronger every day.

'No DSS' is a consequence not a cause.

Any campaign would do far more good focussing on those causes. But then it wouldn't be such a good fund raiser.

by Mick Roberts

12:29 PM, 27th August 2018, About 3 years ago

Very True Monty, Shelter come talk to us, find out why we not taking. And then when 95% of us Landlords tell u the same thing, then Shelter go away & try change the reasons, don't waste effort on us forcing us for someone to live in our house which the Govt ain't gonna' pay for.

This was NOWHERE SUCH AN ISSUE when HB paid Landlord, how simple is that?
All they got to do is say Mr Thick Govt, we getting lots of homeless 'cause u INSISTENT on paying tenant the Landlords rent (Why would u do that in the first place beggars belief). So why not just pay the landlord what the house & mortgage lender are actually asking for? The rent to pay mortgage. It's so easy.
LHA messed up in 2008 with insistent pay tenant. HB staff loved it having one over on the Landlord. Homeless staff in the SAME council wasn't happy about it, as direct correlation with homeless figures shooting up.
Approx 2012, the SAME HB staff then made it much easier for us to get direct payment, job done, we started to take HB again & stopped chucking 'em out for non payment of rent.
Am I Einstein? 'Cause on them words above, my Labrador could work out. Or are the Govt thick?
It's easy, I'll say it again, pay the landlord the Housing Element, rent part, so so so simple simple simple.

I've said it before on this site, tenant been with my approx. 15 years, no arrears, now on UC, in arrears. Is that Einstein again? I don't think so.

by Sercret Agent

8:31 AM, 8th September 2018, About 3 years ago

It’s not always financially feasible to approach one specific lender who may agree with Shelter as there are often restrictions with lenders who may cap the amount a LL who has several properties can borrow. Lenders themselves know that it’s the HB tenants themselves who don’t pay their rent that cause the LLto default on their mortgage. LLs know it’s the lenders that will take action against them to recover the arrears not the tenant. LLs may have Rent Protection which will also restrict who they can rent their property to - will Shelter be just as successful persuadeing insurers as they claim to have been with lenders - I don’t think so. When will the Givt wake up and smell the coffee? It’s not discrimination against tenants on HB, it’s about affordability and affordable housing oh that’s right I forgot, they sold all the housing stock and the tenants have now cashed in but the government have spent all the money on vanity projects like HS2

by Gromit

9:40 AM, 8th September 2018, About 3 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Sercret Agent at 08/09/2018 - 08:31
".....spent all the money on vanity projects like HS2."

aka lining the pockets of big business with inflated construction costs.

by Ian Narbeth

15:36 PM, 10th September 2018, About 3 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Sercret Agent at 08/09/2018 - 08:31
The point is that until a substantial majority of lenders will accept HB, a prudent landlord will not do so. If he does he excludes his business from refinancing with a significant number of lenders. He may end up paying a higher rate of interest because he has a smaller choice of lenders. Indeed lenders who will accept HB may start to impose higher rates/more stringent terms where there are HB tenants. It's not rocket science, just rational behaviour by landlords.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?