Equality laws could affect “no benefit tenants” policies

Could most people be missing the point here?

Isn’t the point that we should consider all applications equally rather than simply saying No DSS? That organisation hasn't existed for years now by the way!

If our policy was that we only accept tenants who qualify under referencing to the extent that we are able to purchase Rent Guarantee Insurance (RGI) then surely we would be OK?

That has always been my own position. I never refuse to consider people on benefits, but I do explain that without a homeowner guarantor who has a regular income it is unlikely that my insurers will accept them, and if they won’t take the risk then neither will I.

Naturally, I will never discriminate but I will choose the tenant which I believe best matches the level of risk I am prepared to consider. I consider myself risk averse by the way, but some of my friends and family think I am completely bonkers for having taken so many risks in terms of borrowing money to buy rental properties in the first place. It's all relative I suppose.

Perhaps it is the benefit system that is discriminating against men, and denying men from claiming housing benefit.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 26/02/2018 - 11:18
But Mark, asking for a guarantor could also be deemed to be indirect discrimination if it can be proved women or black people or disabled people etc find it harder to get a guarantor. People in these categories will in general be poorer than others and thus less likely to have someone who will act as guarantor. I think this could have huge implications much more widely than in housing.

Is the prospect's gross annual income 30 times the monthly rent? Denying a tenant on such a basis universally prevents them from getting into debt.

If 'discrimination' is not direct, I would argue that it is not discrimination at all... It relies on stats being in your 'favour' at that particular given moment. What would happen with regards precedent if there were a seismic shift to majority males claiming benefits or a majority of one particular race group?

Reply to the comment left by at 26/02/2018 - 11:51
That is a general rule of thumb and a very good one, used by many tenant referencing and RGI providers I believe.

It is common sense, just as limiting mortgage borrowing to multiples of income is also common sense.

Affordability has nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination.

When the day comes that discrimination on the grounds of affordability exists the world will have gone well and truly mad and I will either own everything of mega high value which is for sale in the the world or sue every lender that refuses to lend me the money to purchase whatever the hell I want!

My buildings insurance does not cover me if tenants are not working unless retired or claiming disability benefits so it’s out of my hands?

I have replied to that BBC article (on a form below it) along these lines:
"Maybe it is worth asking why Landlords do not want benefit tenants? From statistical point of view benefit tenants are more likely to run into arrears, damage the property (repairs sometimes worth thousands of pounds), not move out when served eviction (most of them will follow Shelter advice and live rent free to up to 40 weeks), effectively stealing from landlord.
Perhaps biased BBC should also consider the recent war on landlords leading to eviction due to selling or to substantial rent increase, caused by idiocy of Section 24 (tax on fictitious profit). Would HB tenant be able to afford such increase? This is forward thinking on the home provider's side.
BBC seems to forget that majority of lenders prohibit benefit tenants. Maybe Government should address that issue first? The government who would work with LLs and banks to provide an inexpensive mortgage on condition that the property will be rented to benefit tenants and rent will be paid directly to landlord will have a big win in election. But of course the need of rich cronies have to be addressed first. Tenants in a grand scheme of things do not really matter much to the Government"

Reply to the comment left by Susan Bradley at 26/02/2018 - 11:58
Yes Susan. And lenders can also stipulate this. We could get caught between a rock and a hard placentre. Similarly, I would like to know what Scottish landlords are doing now that they have to offer open-ended tenancies - when many will have lenders who only permit maximum 12 month tenancies.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 26/02/2018 - 11:18
Hi Mark,
That’s no always possible as very often Lenders stipulate that a tenant must be a professional person, the application as you know asks the same question “ will you be Letting the property to professional people?”
Ironically the day after the “professional” tenant signs the contract for a minimum of 6 months they could lose their jobs and claim allowances.
The Landlord is now committed to Letting to a person on allowances in direct contravention to terms of the Loan.
What then?
If the terms that have now been broken where to be enforced the Lender could ask for the full loan amount to be repaid immediately.

Landlords eh !! Caught between a rock and a hard place as usual ...