Should landlords be allowed be allowed to refuse tenants because they're unemployed?

[Bad Lieutenant]

I know that private companies aren't allowed to pick and choose their customers based on, say, sexual orientation, race or religion, but landlords in the UK often advertise property with "no DSS" (department of social security (ie. those on income support)) in the text.

Is it correct that an already villified group in society be openly discriminated against in this way?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Why do landlords say “No DSS”?

Well, for many reasons. Sometimes lenders of buy-to-let mortgages may have a clause in their agreement that the landlord cannot let the property to tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit, or perhaps a landlord’s insurance will not cover the property if it is let to tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit.

It may be the case that the landlord has let to tenants in the past who have been in receipt of Housing Benefit and have found that the Housing Benefit office processing the claim has taken a great deal of time to make a payment. Because of this there has been a delay in the landlord being paid his rent.

Or it may simply be the case that the landlord does not wish to rent to tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit because he feels they will spend more of their time in the property on a day to day basis than someone who is working, and therefore cause more wear and tear.

Finally, it may be the case that a landlord, in placing a “to let” advertisement in the local paper, looks at how other landlords have written their adverts and follows suit.

http://www.communityha.org.uk/smartmove/no-dss/

 

[jj]

Ah, not quite what the headline said. I dare say all of us retired people are "unemployed", but gainfully so, as it were.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Very interesting Professor, but I must say I don't find any of those reasons particularly...convincing or, indeed, unavoidable.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Ah, not quite what the headline said. I dare say all of us retired people are "unemployed", but gainfully so, as it were.

In the UK you only count toward the unemployment figures if you're receiving JSA (jobseeker's allowance). All unemployed people are "DSS", according to the official definition, as I understand things.

 

[lionking]

It probably should not happen, but I must admit that if I were the landlord, i would not want an unemployed person renting.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Very interesting Professor, but I must say I don't find any of those reasons particularly...convincing or, indeed, unavoidable.

If you read on in the link, it gives more advice about contacting landlords with these stipulations. Some will change their minds if you allay any fears they have and come across as a responsible person.

 

[JJM 777]

Some 15 years ago I lied to a landlord that I work, and he didn´t check the information. So I got the flat, and paid my rents ok.

Changes in life situation are beyond the control of the landlord anyway. A worker can be next month a student or unemployed. A worker can drink or bet all his money.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

In the UK you only count toward the unemployment figures if you're receiving JSA (jobseeker's allowance). All unemployed people are "DSS", according to the official definition, as I understand things.

In the context of these ads, they specifically mean people in receipt of housing benefit.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

If you read on in the link, it gives more advice about contacting landlords with these stipulations. Some will change their minds if you allay any fears they have and come across as a responsible person.

And some will maintain their view that the unemployed are "bad eggs" and a risk not worth taking.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

In the context of these ads, they specifically mean people in receipt of housing benefit.

Do you have a reliable citation for that please?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Do you have a reliable citation for that please?

Did you read the link previously provided? Or do you not consider it reliable?

No DSS!
What does it mean?

When you look at advertisements offering property for let, many will state “No DSS”. What does this mean?

It means that the landlord offering the property for rental has decided that he does not wish to rent to tenants who will have to claim Housing Benefit in order to pay the rent he is charging.

http://www.communityha.org.uk/smartmove/no-dss/

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Do you have a reliable citation for that please?

Other than the link I posted I'm afraid not - just the experience of people I know - so I may indeed be wrong. I'm thinking of people I know who inquired about a property when they were receiving JSA (contribution based) but not housing benefit and finding the landlord had no problem with that.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

And some will maintain their view that the unemployed are "bad eggs" and a risk not worth taking.

Yes, and that is unfortunate. I'm not sure it is something that needs a legal remedy, but I'm willing to be persuaded. There is also the question of whether these ads indirectly discriminate against people with disabilities - as they may be more likely to be in receipt of benefits.

 

[Darat]

Yes, and that is unfortunate. I'm not sure it is something that needs a legal remedy, but I'm willing to be persuaded. There is also the question of whether these ads indirectly discriminate against people with disabilities - as they may be more likely to be in receipt of benefits.

I'm sure there was court case about whether it did amount to indirect discrimination on grounds of disability in the last year or two and if I recall the legal position was that it didn't but can't find a link to it. I'll carry on having a look.

ETA: From this site: http://www.netrent.co.uk/NetRent-Landlord-Resource-Centre/page/Unlawful-Discrimination.aspx

...snip...

Indirect discrimination consists of applying a requirement or condition that, although applied equally to persons whether male or female, black or white, is such that a considerably smaller proportion of a particular racial or gender group can comply with it than others, and it cannot be shown to be ‘justifiable’.

With regard to issues pertaining to disability, a similar requirement exists that landlords do not impose criteria that could be identified as ‘unreasonable’.

...snip...

Since the reason for "no DSS" could easily be argued as stemming from a financial perspective (bad payment history, LA screwing up payments and so on) I would say that such a criteria would be considered reasonable.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Other than the link I posted I'm afraid not - just the experience of people I know - so I may indeed be wrong. I'm thinking of people I know who inquired about a property when they were receiving JSA (contribution based) but not housing benefit and finding the landlord had no problem with that.

DSS includes JSA, one poster has already (very honestly) stated they would rather not have an unemployed tenant, and my experience is that landlords always ask about employment status when interviewing potential tenants. Besides, I don't think It would make much difference if the thread were called "Should landlords be allowed to refuse tenants who claim housing benefit" - that would be essentially the same thread anyway, give or take.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I'm sure there was court case about whether it did amount to indirect discrimination on grounds of disability in the last year or two and if I recall the legal position was that it didn't but can't find a link to it. I'll carry on having a look.

There was a fair amount of noise about it when the Equality Act 2010 was passed but don't think it made it to court (happy to be proven wrong).

Don't see the argument getting anywhere. Would need to argue it is indirect discrimination and that is only a problem if there is no legitimate reason justifying it. Don't think it would be hard to convince a court that there is a higher risk of late / unpaid rent from a tenant in receipt of benefits than one who is not.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Don't think it would be hard to convince a court that there is a higher risk of late / unpaid rent from a tenant in receipt of benefits than one who is not.

I don't have the statistics to hand, but I know in the USA that black people are more likely to have wealth insecurity. I doubt a court would say that this "statistical fact" justifies racial discrimination against potential tenants based on a projection of their rent payment reliability. I know it's a crass analogy but it seems the point need be made.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I don't have the statistics to hand, but I know in the USA that black people are more likely to have wealth insecurity. I doubt a court would say that this "statistical fact" justifies racial discrimination against potential tenants based on a projection of their rent payment reliability. I know it's a crass analogy but it seems the point need be made.

Racial discrimination would be to not let to any black people.

Letting only to people who can afford the rent, even if that means it is less likely to be to a black person, is not racial discrimination.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I have no direct experience with this, but my impression from talking with folks (USA) who use the state housing assistance is that the state pays the landlord directly, and gives a monthly check for some large fraction of the rent, varying a bit by tenant's income. As a landlord I'd prefer this, where I'm guaranteed the bulk of the rent no matter what, to a tenant who might be employed this month and layed off the next, or who might have a great income and a cocaine habit, like the ponies, or any of the other reasons why someone with money to pay me might choose not to. I can point at several local rental complexes that actively solicit tenants with rental assistance, so I figure I'm not the only one who reasons it out the way I do.