13:36 PM, 14th October 2020, About 4 years ago 74
Text Size
Those who believe that Government is not aware of the issues facing landlords in the PRS may be surprised by the detailed analysis in the Briefing Paper published on 13th October by the House of Commons library.
The summary is quoted below but I recommend reading the whole report, which can be downloaded if you click here
“Discriminating against Housing Benefit claimants?
It is not unusual for private landlords and letting agents to advertise properties to let stating that they will not accept applications from people who rely on Housing Benefit (HB) to pay their rent. Despite the Department of Social Security not having existed since 2001, the phrase used in adverts is usually “No DSS”. This has raised the question of whether such restrictions amount to unlawful discrimination. Although unlikely to amount to direct discrimination, as income and employment status are not protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, it has long been argued that it could amount to indirect discrimination in some cases.
Findings of unlawful discrimination 2020
In what was described as a ‘landmark’ case, District Judge Victoria Elizabeth Mark sitting in York County Court, considered the case of a disabled single parent who had an application for private rented housing refused by a letting agent based on her receipt of Housing Benefit. In a judgment dated 2 July 2020, which was widely reported in the media on 14 July 2020, she held that the letting agent was in breach of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment declared that:
The Defendant’s former policy of rejecting tenancy applications because the applicant is in receipt of Housing Benefit was unlawfully indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex and disability contrary to sections 19 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010.
Reacting to the judgment, Chris Norris, policy director for the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) reportedly said:
No landlord should discriminate against tenants because they are in receipt of benefits. Every tenant’s circumstance is different, and so they should be treated on a case by case basis based on their ability to sustain a tenancy.
This was followed by a case considered in Birmingham County Court in which judgment was handed down on 8 September 2020. Circuit Judge and Acting Designated Civil Judge for Birmingham (now High Court Judge), Mary Stacey, held that the letting agency, Paul Carr, had operated a blanket ‘No DSS’ policy which amounted to unlawful indirect discrimination against disabled people.
Why are landlords reluctant to let to Housing Benefit claimants?
Historically, landlords were reluctant to let to HB claimants because of delays in processing HB applications, but since April 2008 a key factor influencing landlords has been the introduction of the Local Housing Allowance and the requirement that this, except in certain specified circumstances, is paid to claimants rather than landlords. Restrictions on the level of LHA paid to claimants were introduced by the Coalition Government in April 2011 – these changes led various housing bodies, including representative bodies of private landlords, to argue that HB claimants were being priced out of the market.
Further restrictions were introduced; for example, LHA rates were frozen with effect from April 2016 for four years. This added to landlords’ concerns about the gap between LHA and market rent levels. Evidence of disparities between actual rent levels and LHA rates payable submitted to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee’s inquiry into homelessness (2016) led the Committee to recommend that “Local Housing Allowances levels should also be reviewed so that they more closely reflect market rents.”
At the start of the fourth year of the benefit freeze (2019/20), analysis conducted by Shelter noted that the LHA rates for a two-bedroom home did not cover the full rent charged in 97% of Broad Rental Market Areas in England.
Other factors cited as reasons for landlords’ reluctance to let to HB claimants include:
The extent of the issue?
There is no definitive information on the extent to which landlords have refused to let to benefit claimants. Reported survey evidence has suggested an increase in the practice in recent years.
Given the increase in Universal Credit claims arising from the coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak, in June 2020 Shelter raised the potential implications of “No DSS” blanket bans for tenants:
Given the huge rise in the numbers of people receiving housing benefit and what we know about rates of discrimination, we’re concerned that there will be a significant increase in the numbers of people experiencing housing benefit discrimination in the coming months.
As people in existing tenancies tell their landlords they’ve applied for Universal Credit, and those who need to move home begin the search for somewhere to live, renters who are now relying on housing benefit to keep their head above water will be coming up against discrimination.
The likely spike in evictions in the months that follow the lifting of the evictions ban has the potential to exacerbate this further. When the ban is lifted, there will be an upsurge in the number of renters who need to look for a new home. A significant proportion of private renters who may be evicted will likely be receiving housing benefit, especially considering the huge rise in people applying for Universal Credit during the coronavirus outbreak, and so will be met by ‘No DSS’ policies.
In the wake of the finding of indirect discrimination in July 2020, it seems likely that instances of blanket ‘No DSS’ adverts will disappear. However, affordability checks based on a tenant’s individual circumstances will still be possible.
The issue had attracted an increased level of attention in recent years. On 21 February 2019 the Work and Pensions Select Committee launched an inquiry into No DSS: discrimination against benefit claimants in the housing sector – the inquiry had not concluded before the dissolution of Parliament for the 2019 General Election. On 1 March 2019 the then Minister, Heather Wheeler, said the Government was calling for “the end of housing advertisements which specify ‘No DSS’ tenants.” ”
David
Previous Article
Mortgage payment holiday forbearance frameworkNext Article
Are you a ‘Rent to Rent’ Landlord?
Seething Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up19:30 PM, 15th October 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by John Dace at 15/10/2020 - 11:24
You obviously have not read page 11 of the report where potential clawback is mentioned as one of the issues of concern to landlords.
Seething Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up19:45 PM, 15th October 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Kate Mellor at 15/10/2020 - 14:19
Why do your concerns about the abolition of S21 and the propensity of tenants to wait for the bailiffs to evict them apply specifically to HB tenants rather than across the board?
Monty Bodkin
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up22:03 PM, 15th October 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 15/10/2020 - 19:45
Because HB tenants are being specifically advised (or threatened) to do so.
Seething Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up1:28 AM, 16th October 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 15/10/2020 - 22:03Yes but the threat is that they will be regarded as intentionally homeless if they leave before being ejected by the bailiffs and the local authority will not then be under an obligation to rehouse them. This will no longer apply once section 21 has been abolished because the underlying reason for eviction will be apparent instead of hidden and in most cases the tenant will be regarded as intentionally homeless anyway, assuming that the vast majority of possession claims result from rent arrears or anti-social behaviour.
The main reason for the LHA to intervene will have disappeared and the HB tenant will have no greater incentive to wait for the bailiffs than any other tenant.
Kate Mellor
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:53 AM, 16th October 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 16/10/2020 - 01:28
I was intending them as separate points that landlords feel make a negative impact on the scales when weighing a HB tenant against a working tenant.
Statistically you are more likely to encounter issues with a non-working tenant (such as anti-social behaviour, property damage and rent arrears), so the removal of an accelerated possession procedure isn’t appealing as those who may have decided on a case by case basis that a HB tenant seems like someone they’re prepared to take a risk on (most HB tenants don’t have suitable guarantors in my experience), are sadly rejected, because the potential impact if things go wrong is too great.
And currently we have the issue where tenants who would otherwise have preferred to leave as requested are being given no choice by councils other than to stay put and there may be simply no suitable PRS property in the area that will accept them. Also, many see it as a golden opportunity to get an increasingly rare council property, so they’re prepared to become homeless in order to facilitate that.
Chris @ Possession Friend
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up10:02 AM, 16th October 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Kate Mellor at 16/10/2020 - 09:53
Plus you have at least a 'chance' of getting an attachment to earnings order against an employed tenant. ( appreciate any working tenant can become U/E, especially in current times )
That's aside from the various U.C issues built into the system by Govt.
( Paid in Arrears, Benefit less than market rent in 97% of the country, Samuels v Birmingham Council, [ courtesy of Shelter ] tenant cant be considered Intentionally Homeless for not using remainder of benefit to top up the rent, Benefit Re-Claimable for any tenant misdemeanour, Poor relationship with UC for Landlords etc )
Monty Bodkin
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up10:52 AM, 16th October 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 16/10/2020 - 01:28
As Chris points out, non payment of rent alone is not sufficient reason to be declared intentionally homeless.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/homelessness-code-of-guidance-for-local-authorities/chapter-9-intentional-homelessness
Seething Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up15:32 PM, 16th October 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 16/10/2020 - 10:52
Thanks Monty, that is very enlightening. 9.27 explains why Local Authorities tell tenants to sit tight until a writ of possession is executed - once they have been told, they can no longer claim ignorance of their right to remain in occupation.
Seething Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up15:53 PM, 16th October 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Chris @ Possession Friend at 16/10/2020 - 10:02
The question of whether or not non-payment of rent will result in a declaration of intentional homelessness is covered in some detail in the guidance helpfully referenced by Monty.
Most if not all of the other points that you raise are included in the briefing paper, which as you will know if you have read it presents the evidence on both sides of the debate in a neutral and unbiased way. Shelter, RLA and NLA are quoted at length and are clearly regarded as the representative voice of tenants and landlords respectively.
Jonathan Clarke
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up22:38 PM, 16th October 2020, About 4 years ago
I would happily rent to DSS tenants and indeed do so.
But I have reduced my exposure to them from 75% of my portfolio down to 20% over the last 4 years .
There are many reasons as to why but here are 3
1) The Council and the DWP wont engage effectively with me and have a complete lack of awareness of my needs and also have administration systems slower than a snail
2) All my LHA rents were paid direct but UC put a stop to that
3) The LHA rates were frozen for 4 years so dropped well behind the market rate and I don't want to lose £100 pcm on each property . What sane person would
So I don`t discriminate against DSS tenants. I discriminate against the ludicrous stoopid system which is not fit for purpose and does not support me or the tenants
The DSS system sets DSS tenants up to fail