‘No DSS’ adverts in the private rented sector

Universal Credit tenants owe an average of £2400 in rent arrears!!! - and the Universal Credit scheme is not even set up in all areas yet, so the results are still in their infancy! (i.e. most people on Universal Credit have not reached the plateau of their debt (rent arrears), the average is still increasing).
- On this basis it does not matter whether mortgage lenders allow DSS tenants or not, as the private landlords are unlikely to want to let to anyone on Universal Credit anyway.

The Landlords alliance is quite clear on this Shelter inspired garbage. Landlords it is your property and decisions on who to accept as tenants should be based on commercial reality. See Robs comments above re arrears with benefit tenants.
Having said that, landlords must avoid using terms such as 'No UC or no DSS tenants. This does not mean we must accept any tenant. Far from it.
The wording the Alliance now recommends is as follows.
Employed tenants welcome.
Let that be the new standard. Every landlord/agent needs to use that term going forward. Let Shelter house Benefit tenants

This stems from a cynical ploy by Shelter to portray landlords in a bad light and stoke public resentment against us. It will do nothing to help the many benefit recipients whose housing element payments are way below local market rents. Rather it cruelly raises their hopes and costs them money as they vainly respond to advertisements only to be told that they will not pass referencing or qualify for rent guarantee insurance. When we advertise a property with a no HB/UC restriction we spend whole days making appointments to view in response to a stream of telephone and email enquiries, even a few from desperate benefit claimants hoping we will make an exception. I daren't imagine the response if we are not permitted to screen out those who stand no chance from the outset. I might as well glue the phone to my ear and my fingers to the keyboard! Persecuting and vilifying private landlords will not help because the fault lies elsewhere, with the failure to provide sufficient social housing or keep benefits in line with the cost of provision of private services.

We should definitely be looking at this on a case by case basis. Four of my tenants get UC or HB, all of them are up to date with their rent, and on average they stay longer than the non-DSS tenants do.

Each to their own I say. Some LL's business models work for benefit tenants and some do not. I am no way going to be popular with my student tenants if I tell them that their 6th housemate is not a student but instead an unemployed 35 year old on benefits. You have to get the mix right. That's really important for the tenants.
In truth, whatever legislation they throw at us, won't make a lot of difference because ways and means will always be found by landlords and indeed their other tenants to ensure that prospective tenants can be matched to the properties that are most suitable to their circumstances.

As for the RLA, I don't know why they seem to be pushing so much for removal of what they see as barriers. Have their members been particularly clamouring for this? I don't think so. I do sometimes wonder about the RLA's agenda.

Reply to the comment left by Simon Williams at 05/03/2019 - 10:31RLA once again showing that they do not support their membership. From supporting Councils Selective Licensing schemes to the rights of Landlords to decide who they'll rent to.
RLA Members should cancel their membership, and send a clear message to those who purport to represent them. The RLA is not fit for purpose!

This will have another backlash in a few months.
Benefit applicants complaining of several applications and no offers. They will find it harder to source landlords who are willing to entertain them as the adverts will become unclear and they will feel mislead.
If the govt wish the private sector to solve the housing crisis then make councils guarantor the rent.
If the constant attacks continue on landlords then their will be less rented places available as more landlords leave the market leaving the remaining landlords will more choice of applicants and their suitability.
Applying for a tenancy should remain like applying for a job. Ie. Most suitable not 1st come 1st served.

Reply to the comment left by Jon Sear at 05/03/2019 - 10:12
We used to judge potential tenants on a case by case basis and our one remaining property let to LHA tenants houses a couple who have never been late with their rent in the almost 12 years they have been there. (All others have defaulted and cost us money.) The problem is we have not been able to increase their rent in all that time. I am dreading the rollout of UC to our area.

I don’t see a problem with this.
RLA are calling for Universal Credit to be paid directly to landlords, removing cap on Local Housing Allowance, and getting rid of Mortgage lender discrimination. (I’m surprised that there haven’t been court cases about that as disability discrimination to be honest.)
RLA still advocate a case by case basis for choosing tenants, so if you don’t want Benefit tenants, that’s up to you.

What would the RLA guy suggest if a landlord has a mortgage that does not permit tenants on benefits ?

Would he still say that an advertisement shouldn’t preclude an applicant on benefits , even though the landlord is not ultimately allowed to rent to them ? Wouldn’t that just be a waste of people’s time ?