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?
Vulnerable Tenant
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up13:28 PM, 11th November 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Paul landlord at 15/10/2020 - 16:52
There are actually companies now who provide Rent Guarantee Insurance for people on benefits, and it’s not much more expensive than for a “working professional”. You might even find that the tenant agrees to pay a higher rent to cover the cost of it, if they need a home that badly, and can’t find anywhere else. As for the “DSS ban”, it is unlawful when you are rejecting disabled people, and anyone else who can afford to pay you the month’s rent and deposit upfront, can afford to pay you the second month’s rent without problem whilst their HB is assessed, and who are claiming benefits simply to keep a roof over their head. As a disabled vulnerable person, I have it so many times when I have phoned about a property, it’s been very amicable, but as soon as I tell them I suffer from severe illnesses and how much money I have coming in (more than them usually), suddenly they become very hostile and angry. It really isn’t nice at all, to be treated like that. Judged for being disabled, basically. I have even had it implied that as I have been on benefits due to severe illness and severe disability for over 18 years now, that I can’t be trusted to look after a property and pay my rent on time, when I haven’t defaulted once! I understand about the UC rollout. Happily, I will be one of the last people in the country to switch over to that, and it’s years away! As for the clawback, thoroughly check out WHY they are on benefits, to be as sure as you can be that they are genuine, and DEFINITELY have the Rent Guarantee Insurance in place. If you take in vulnerable people, their social workers/carers/mental health workers etc are NOT going to want them kicked out for rent arrears, and possibly homeless, or put in some hellhole, so THEY will make sure that the tenant pays up. I once had a rent payment that the bank clerk put into the wrong account, as she wasn’t concentrating, so she entered an incorrect digit, and even though the name was totally different, she failed to notice! My landlord contacted my social worker to say he hadn’t received my rent, and my social worker turned up! I had the receipt of the payment, so we went down to Nat West, and eventually they realised their mistake and my landlord got paid. The joke of it was, it was the only time that she bothered to turn up at my home whilst I lived there. So vulnerable people can be a good bet as tenants.
Vulnerable Tenant
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up13:35 PM, 11th November 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 16/10/2020 - 22:38
It does, and Rishi has plans in place to make things even worse. He is going to punish pensioners as well.
Vulnerable Tenant
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up13:45 PM, 11th November 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 17/10/2020 - 09:33
So the frauster is expected to call up UC and say “hi, you don’t know me, but I have made a fraudulent claim in Mick Roberts’ name to make some dough. I rang you idiots posing as Mick and said I had moved into my real home in Plymouth, and you dumbos never realised, so I am quids in. Thank you very much. But now I want to come clean as I feel so guilty. My name is.... Please get me arrested for fraud”.
😂😂
Vulnerable Tenant
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up16:03 PM, 11th November 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Landlord Phil at 17/10/2020 - 13:48
The same is true with working people though Phil, as we have seen throughout this pandemic. So many people are losing their jobs, and being forced onto minimum UC. Tenants who were already resident in properties whose landlords refuse benefit tenants altogether, yet now a very friendly business relationship exists between them, because the tenants have been there for years without incident. It’s all very individual. Take my situation, for example. I have a huge amount of money coming in to pay for my disabilities, so I can afford to live somewhere nice. I have been getting the same benefit entitlement since I first applied over 18 1/2 years ago. Not once have I had any payment not turn up, or paid late. I know quite a lot of people on UC who have also found that their payments are paid on the same date of every month. They just prefer the old system, because it’s far less complicated.
At least with a benefits tenant who has been receiving the same large amount of disability benefits or whatever for several years, you know that is far less likely to change, than someone’s restaurant during covid.