Subject to status and referencing

Subject to status and referencing

15:55 PM, 11th June 2019, About 3 years ago 110

Text Size

Might the phrase “Subject to status and referencing” be more politically correct than “No DSS”?

The only reason I can think of for using the “No DSS” phraseology is if advertising is priced on a per word or per character basis. Unless you’re advertising in a Newspaper, which is very rare in this digital age, I cannot see much point anyway.

Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, “the Department of Social Security (DSS) is a defunct governmental agency in the United Kingdom.”

With that being the case, I cannot understand why lenders T&C’s still use the phraseology, or indeed why lobbyists such as Generation Rent or Shelter have such a problem with it.

Landlords generally only want three things from their tenants:-

  1. Pay the rent on time
  2. Respect the property
  3. Respect the neighbours

Proper referencing of prospective tenants should enable landlords to make an informed choice, and to purchase Rent Guarantee, Legal Fees Protection and other forms of insurance to mitigate their risks. Therefore, in my opinion, the phrase “No DSS” is entirely superfluous to advertising.

What are your thoughts on this?


Michael Barnes

21:54 PM, 11th June 2019, About 3 years ago

"No DSS" is not discriminatory in any way because there is no DSS any more.

It should be possible to defend the use of the words in this way in all circumstances.

Larry Sweeney

22:06 PM, 11th June 2019, About 3 years ago

Excellent point Michael. I like it.
The advise of the Alliance to landlords is therefore. No Dss.

Arnie Newington

22:11 PM, 11th June 2019, About 3 years ago

This seems a pointless exercise for both landlords and tenants.

There are plenty of reasons why landlords would not want to take benefit tenants even if the tenants are decent people.

If a landlord won’t take a benefit tenant then it seems cruel to invite them along to view a house that they can’t get.


3:01 AM, 12th June 2019, About 3 years ago

Obfuscated Data

Monty Bodkin

7:24 AM, 12th June 2019, About 3 years ago

From many months ago;

"In the next few months Shelter intends to bring a series of test cases to court"

Still waiting.

Luke P

9:38 AM, 12th June 2019, About 3 years ago

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 12/06/2019 - 03:01
Morally discriminatory? Maybe. But certainly not legally so.

Removing emotion for a moment, do you think anyone should be able to tell you what you can/can't do with your property, or more specifically who who should/shouldn't lend it to? By property, I mean it in the literally should you be forced to lend your clothes you are not wearing that day to someone you may not like or trust? I bet you wouldn't lend your vehicle to the next door neighbours young lad because, say, the RAC, states young motorists have a tough time affording and insuring the better cars and are stuck with nothing more than outdated safety 'bangers'.

Same is true for BTL bricks and mortar. If you/Shelter/Govt. insist on telling private individuals in a free-market what to do with their property and then make it law, people will give up doing it. Don't assume they'll always be there come what may and therefore have no option but to jump to the new tune of the law...they won't.

Arnie Newington

9:52 AM, 12th June 2019, About 3 years ago

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 12/06/2019 - 03:01
You are allowed to discriminate on the basis of ability to pay.

I agree that there are plenty of decent benefit tenants.

There is plenty wrong with the benefit system that others have gone into and if you want an easy life as a landlord then I would avoid taking benefit tenants.


10:04 AM, 12th June 2019, About 3 years ago

Is it still the case that if a tenant on benefits is in your property with the rent being paid to you directly that if it subsequently transpires that the tenant is not eligible for benefit then the council can come and get the rent back off you?

David Price

10:12 AM, 12th June 2019, About 3 years ago

Whilst I agree with the spirit of your post I have to disagree about "DSS" tenants, but only those whose sole income is from benefits.
". . . It is only a small minority of “DSS” tenants who default on their rent, cause anti-social behaviour, damage the property, refuse to leave when they are given notice to, etc"
In my experience it is the vast majority of "DSS" tenants who commit one or more of the behaviours you describe. In 30 years of letting and well over 1000 tenancies I have only had two tenants give proper notice to quit, never had a tenant leave a property in a clean condition and had many properties trashed to the extent that only the outer walls are left standing. Tenants whose sole income is from benefits are generally troublesome, the sleep all day and annoy neighbours with their music at night, they care little for the property as they know they can move on to a nice clean home ready to trash. They spend their life making sure they are one step ahead of the bailiffs. Despite all the hype from Shelter "DSS" tenants whose sole income is from benefits are a very much higher risk than working tenants, hence the reluctance of Shelter to act as guarantor for such individuals.

Seething Landlord

11:36 AM, 12th June 2019, About 3 years ago

Reply to the comment left by JJ at 12/06/2019 - 10:04
Yes, claw back of benefits is a very real risk which seems to be overlooked in much of the discussion about benefit tenants. Government argue that landlords are safeguarded against non payment of rent by arrangements for direct payment of the housing element of benefits, particularly UC, as though that solves the problem. In reality it is a time bomb which lulls the landlord into what could prove to be a false sense of security.

I have not had the misfortune to experience this and understand that for it to happen the landlord "should" have been aware of the circumstances giving rise to the disallowance of the benefit, but there is still the potential for time consumiing and expensive argument which we can well do without.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now