Subject to status and referencing

Subject to status and referencing

15:55 PM, 11th June 2019, About 2 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?



Comments

by David Price

19:34 PM, 19th June 2019, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by JJ at 19/06/2019 - 15:47
JJ you are perfectly entitled to your opinion; it differs from mine.
Why not ask Amelia exactly where her properties are advertised?

by ameliahartman

0:54 AM, 20th June 2019, About 2 years ago

Obfuscated Data

by David Price

6:43 AM, 20th June 2019, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 20/06/2019 - 00:54Amelia, where can we see the advertisements for your properties and under what name do you trade?

by ameliahartman

18:00 PM, 20th June 2019, About 2 years ago

Obfuscated Data

by Seething Landlord

20:38 PM, 20th June 2019, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by JJ at 19/06/2019 - 15:47" A previous post suggested that claw back of benefits is a real risk, but for it to happen the landlord "should" have been aware of the circumstances giving rise to the disallowance of the benefit."
Just to elaborate on this, the following is an extract from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-benefit-overpayments-guide - para 4.164

Following the April 2006 amendments to the HB Regs, LAs must recover an overpayment caused by a misrepresentation or failure to disclose information from the person or persons who actually misrepresented or failed to disclose that information.
Before accepting direct payments, a landlord should be made aware
• of their duty to report any changes of circumstances that they might reasonably be expected to know might affect the claimant’s entitlement to benefit
• that the LA may decide an HB overpayment is recoverable from them
HB Sch 9(11)(b) & (SPC) Sch 8(11)b)

by David Price

4:03 AM, 21st June 2019, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 20/06/2019 - 18:00
I would not want to wreck a fellow landlord's business, rather I ask you to verify that you are a real working landlord, for the story you tell is completely counter to the experience of all real working landlords. The fact that you are so aggressive to a very simple and reasonable question only strengthens my belief that you are not a real landlord, please prove me wrong.

by ameliahartman

6:24 AM, 21st June 2019, About 2 years ago

Obfuscated Data

by Monty Bodkin

8:43 AM, 21st June 2019, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 21/06/2019 - 06:24
"I don’t need to “prove I am a real landlord”. I have been a landlord for 29 years, and I have met other landlords in real life who have ALSO: etc...

Do they also work on the same (unmortgageable) profit margins?

ameliahartman
20:37 PM, 13th June 2019
"We make on average £30 profit per property per month"

I hope the tenants are told not to bother unpacking.

by David Price

9:15 AM, 21st June 2019, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 21/06/2019 - 06:24
Amelia, are you comfortable with recursive procedures?

by Beaver

9:30 AM, 21st June 2019, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 20/06/2019 - 20:38
Thank you. It seems to me that if the government wants to house people on benefits the benefits agency paying the benefits should do the checks. I appreciate that Amelia may be running a successful business doing the benefits agency's job for them but it seems to me that she is running a very high risk if the benefits agency can come and get the money back off her because a tenant has provided false information. Unless I simply don't understand how this works of course.

It's also not clear to me what would happen if you had a tenant in your property, the benefits were being paid to you directly by the benefits agency, you asked the tenant after perhaps one year for evidence that the tenant was still entitled to benefits and the tenant did not provide the evidence. If you then went back to the benefits agency and said, "...I no longer have evidence that this tenant is eligible for benefits" would they then stop paying the benefits and leave you with the problem?

Or if you weren't prepared to run this risk would you be able to set up an AST that said that it was a condition of the AST that they provided you with evidence of continued eligibility for benefits at specified intervals? Even if you did this, would you *actually* be able to evict them if they didn't provide it?

Perhaps other people with more experience of this system than I have would like to respond.


Leave Comments

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

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER