A string of major agents have been named this morning as actively discriminating against tenants on housing benefit after a mystery shopping exercise found outright bans in place – and have been warned they could be breaking the law.
The accusation comes in a new report by Shelter and the National Housing Federation.
However, ARLA said yesterday evening that the ban had nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with the way the system works – with delays in landlords receiving rents.
A total of 149 regional letting agent branches that are part of six chains were called by researchers posing as prospective tenants: Bridgfords, Dexters, Fox & Sons, haart, Hunters, and Your Move.
The researchers, from Mystery Shoppers, claim that the worst offender is haart, with a ban on housing benefit tenants in one third of the branches (eight out of 25 called).
The only one of the six not to have a formal ban in place was Hunters (in none of the 25 branches called). However, the research claims to have found that there were still ten branches with no properties available to housing benefit tenants.
Almost half (48%) of branches called allegedly said they had no suitable homes or landlords willing to let to someone on housing benefit.
The two housing organisations say they are “appalled by the findings” and that they have joined forces to urge letting agents and landlords to remove these bans, which they argue are both grossly unfair and likely to be unlawful.
Their joint statement says that the failure of successive governments to build enough social housing means that there are an estimated 1.64m adults who now rely on housing benefit to help with expensive private rents. The statement says that the majority are women – especially single mothers with childcare responsibilities. People who receive disability benefits are also three times more likely to need a housing benefit top-up.
Consequently, they claim, under the Equality Act 2010, letting agents who reject housing benefit tenants outright could be at risk of breaking the law because of indirect discrimination against women and disabled people.
Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter, said: “This ugly undercurrent of discrimination is wreaking havoc on hundreds of thousands of people’s lives. ‘No DSS’ is an outdated and outrageous example of blatant prejudice.
“Private renting is now so expensive that many people simply can’t get by without some housing benefit, even if they’re working. At Shelter we hear from families –who’ve always paid their rent – being pushed to breaking point after having the door repeatedly slammed shut on them just because they need housing benefit.
“Rejecting all housing benefit tenants is morally bankrupt, and because these practices overwhelmingly impact women and disabled people, they could be unlawful. That’s why we’re urging all landlords and letting agents to get rid of housing benefit bans, and treat people fairly on a case by case basis.”
David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, which represents social landlords, said: “Many housing associations were set up in the 50s and 60s to house people who could find nowhere else to live due to blatant racism from private landlords and letting agents who told them ‘No Irish, no blacks, no dogs’.
“Letting agents should be ashamed that discrimination is still happening today in the form of an outright ban on people simply because they depend on housing benefit. We know this is purely based on prejudice.”
However, ARLA chief executive David Cox said: “This is a systemic problem with how housing benefit works.
“Rents are paid in advance, whereas housing benefit is paid in arrears, and therefore with such a shortage of rental accommodation, landlords and agents will naturally choose a tenant who can pay the rent when it is due, rather than a tenant who is always a month in arrears.
“We have called on the Government time and time again to resolve this problem. But our calls have fallen on deaf ears.
“To make the situation worse, many lenders also have a clause in their buy-to-let mortgage agreements which prevent landlords from letting to housing benefit tenants.
“This situation does not exist because of landlords or letting agents – it is a systemic problem caused by the Government and the banks.”
Table of mystery shopping research results:
| Agent names | Total number of calls | Branch policy is to accept people on housing benefit but no properties currently available – reasons unclear | Branch policy is to accept people on housing benefit but no properties currently available – because no landlords currently let to housing benefit tenants | Branch policy is not to accept housing benefit tenants | Total where no properties are available |
| Bridgfords | 25 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 10 |
| Dexters | 25 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 16 |
| Fox & Sons | 24 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 8 |
| Haart | 25 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 15 |
| Hunters | 25 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 10 |
| Your Move | 25 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 12 |
| Total | 149 | 26 | 30 | 15 | 71 |
| Total (%) | 149 | 17% | 20% | 10% | 48% |
| Source: Analysis by Shelter, Mystery shopping fieldwork carried out by independent MRS accredited research agency Mystery Shoppers Ltd. Responses are only categorised in the table above if they definitively meet the criteria, any with any element of doubt are not included. | |||||
| Mystery shopper call quotes:
· “I felt like I was a second-class citizen and that he wanted to get off the phone to me as soon as he could.” · “Once I mentioned housing benefit she was abrupt and wanted to end the call. She was very dismissive and unhelpful.” · “Their tone of voice changed to unfriendly as soon as I mentioned housing benefit and they did not treat me with respect or dignity.” |
|||||
Comments (45)
Take benefits tenants, just have a policy whereby they must have a homeowner working guarantor who values their credit rating !
Works fine for us creates good leverage
A string of real operators have been named toward the beginning of today as currently victimizing occupants on lodging advantage after a secret shopping exercise discovered by and large bans set up – and have been cautioned they could be infringing upon the law.
The allegation arrives in another report by Shelter and the National Housing Federation.
For related info:
<a href=”www.ambrainv.com”>investing</a>
I have emailed the Polly woman a link to this page/thread also sent it to her twitter account (no doubt run by a flash London agency!) so that she can see the amount of bad feeling that she has caused by her reckless and thoughtless actions. Let’s see if she bothers to reply.
“Look at the Agents bullying me online! All I am trying to do is help the housing market and make renting better for the poor tenants!”
If she really wanted to help Tenants she would actually use the money Shelter receive to purchase rental properties and let them to Tenants at ‘affordable rents’. Whilst complying with every single changing aspect of this sector, not charging Tenants anything or expecting them to actually lift a finger, and being on hand 24/7 to change a lightbulb when needed.
From personal experience some Housing Benefits Tenants are good and some are bad.
I had a family living in an property for 2 years and was on Housing Benefit, but as soon as they started to work, their benefits got cut off and their temporary work stopped after 2 months. Soon as Housing Benefits Tenants get some kind of income, they have to fill in numerous forms and then have to reclaim, leaving landlords out of pocket.
I felt sorry for the tenants as it was not their fault, just the system was against them. The tenants are trying to do the right thing and go to work. At one stage I left their rental arrears for two months to give them a breather whilst their claim was going though. I could cope with this but due to the recent constraints I don’t think this would be possible for me anymore.
Another property had housing benefit tenants who kept all the monies from the council and not paid any rent and when I mentioned this to the council, the advise from the council was that we would have to get bailiffs to evict them. The council encourage tenants to stay in the property until the bailiff come. 5 months out of pocket!
I would have to think twice now before I take on Housing benefit tenants but like I said not all are bad.
This government and pass governments has failed the people. The system needs an overhaul.
“The accusation comes in a new report by Shelter and the National Housing Federation.”
“The two housing organisations say they are “appalled by the findings””
I am shocked that Ms Renshaw can describe Shelter as a housing organisation – it is anything but. Contrary to what the name implies, Shelter does not provide shelter to anyone, not a solitary bed.
What it does do is support any initiative that will drive decent private landlords out of the market, coincidentally increasing the number of homeless people they can wring their hands over, showing how much the “charity” is needed.
Its not the disabled or single mothers that get ‘discriminated’ against in these situations. I am happy to assist these people in the right circumstances. If you are a couple, or single without kids or health issues and claiming benefits you have ZERO chance.
Ok, lets make it simple.
Housing Benefit to be paid, by BACS, to the Landlord on the date specified in the contract, every month. None of this every 4 weeks nonsense.
IF a Tenant has been overpaid on their allowance, then the money should be recovered from THEM, not the Landlord.
Those are the two main reasons I am wary of HB tenants, and the reason many of my landlords refuse them. I have one lady who had to start receiving housing benefit when her partner left her and the children. She borrowed from everyone she could to make sure that the rent was paid until she started receiving her back-dated housing benefit, and then used it to repay them WHILST STILL PAYING HER RENT! If they were all like this then I would have no issues.
However I also had one who went in to rent arrears as she spent it all on Christmas, and turns out had a partner living with her so owed the Council money too…
NB:
Landlords have to sign a declaration to their Buy to Let lenders saying they will not let to a housing benefit tenant so they have no choice but to refuse otherwise they are breaking the terms of their mortgage agreement! Most landlords in our area have BTL mortgages…
Exactly. Why are shelter battering agents again instead of looking at mortgage lenders?
Because that doesn’t fit their ‘anti landlord’ narrative!
Seriously – when is the ‘like’ button coming back?
Shouting “Exactly!!!” at the screen isn’t quite the same.
That was fast!
Impressive! Do you do requests? If so I would like the duck, served pink with perhaps a peppercorn sauce!
How aboute a celebratory PIE feast, Duck washed down with Dom Perignon
Hey,
That’s Dom-ist against other people called Dom whose surname also begins with P. Specifically, me I suppose.
Consider yourself informally resolved Dom_P
Here we go again. Shelter are again publishing information on letting agents with absolutely no inside knowledge. Maybe they should look into the reasons why agents and landlords do not take DSS tenants. Rent paid in arrears, higher insurance premiums, cannot pass rent guarantee, more wear and tear on the property, but I have found that the main reasons for landlords not accepting housing benefit is that the councils in their infinite wisdom changed from paying landlords direct to now paying the tenant, therefore the chances of arrears is far more likely. Also if a housing benefit tenant goes into arrears then the council tell the tenants to stay in the property and wait until the bailiffs order. This costs landlords thousands of pounds, yet we are still looked on as the bad guys. I have surveyed my landlords and had an overwhelming 90% of them saying that if payments were made direct to them and if the councils did not have this stay put attitude then they would take housing benefit tenants. So maybe shelter should look at where the problem really lies!
What an absolute disgrace this report – and Shelter – is.
If a landlord instructs the agent not to accept HB tenants, then the agent has to accept that instruction.
What Shelter should be campaigning for is to force the councils to make the acceptance of HB tenants easier. That includes automatic payment of HB to landlords in all circumstances, and the onus on repayment of overpayments being tied to the person who failed to report the change in circumstances that made this necessary.
If Shelter concentrated on these, rather than making Landlords out to be the bad guys then we would all benefit.
As an experienced landlord, I’m more than OK with HB tenants, as they’re generally long term and they’re mostly quite houseproud if you choose them correctly. It’s the ballache of actually getting the rent payments through the overly complicated system that puts most landlords off.
I was once told during legal wranglings that I was at fault for renting a property to an individual that ‘was not affordable to them’…
Make of that, together with this sort of story, what you will.
The last three housing benefit tenants I enabled into properties were all evicted with more than two months arrears and only after exhausting compliance and tedious months of correspondence with the tenant and each of three different councils.
Damages left added considerably more to their debt plus the necessary void to remedy.
Even with a CCJ there is no chance of payment with no earnings to attach and no possessions to levy on.
In all these cases drugs played a significant factor.
Landlords and agents cannot be expected to be social workers.
If soon we can’t charge tenant fees why waste our time processing applicants who will likely fail the affordability test for a property.
Shelter once again showing how out of touch they are.
We have no such policy in place, however, as mentioned above many landlords simply won’t accept people on benefits. Additionally, I’ve not had one good/normal experience with tenants on benefits in all the years I have been in this industry. Not discrimination, just a fact.
If the rent was paid to the landlord directly then I suspect more would, but often it is more than just payment of rent, it is the condition the property is left in.
I would also suggest it is not up to shelter to dictate who people let their property to no more than it is who someone sells their property to.
Blimey, I wish we had been named as one of the ‘Offenders’ – the positive PR in terms of generating new landlord business would be well worth the zero negative effects of Shelter telling us we had been a very naughty boy.
If the council paid the landlord direct and they guaranteed they would keep paying then a large number of landlords would probably rent to them. If you could get the tenant to leave when they are supposed to and not have to evict them because the council tell the tenant not to go until they are then I am fairly certain we would have a level playing field. Until then stop beating up the agent and the landlord.
I wish Shelter would just politely p**s off! What on earth do they know about running a lettings business?
in addition to the above there is a huge issue with Landlords insurance.
We always tell potential tenants that we will consider them wherever their income comes from but part of that consideration is what the Landlords insurance will allow.
A very large amount of our Landlords insurances stipulates that tenants must be working – and frequently state must be professional working people. Not something I agree with as many candidates are disabled / retired out of the forces etc – also there retired people. Also could cause an issue when a very good tenant is made redundant – still able to afford rent but does not tick the Landlords insurance box.
Insurance companies are allowed to work with different rules and assess risk to their policies / company liability which is why they can do this. Not something that is afforded to our industry.
Why is it that the government, trade bodies and charities have to make everything so complicated that it causes the very heart of business to pull up the drawbridge? what I mean is that if the local authorities gave guarantees that actually meant something to a landlord / agent, Like paying to adapt the property for disabled tenant/s or should the tenant/s become an issue then rent would be guaranteed to landlord and the process of either reading the riot act to the tenant/s or removing them at their cost and making good the property should there be a need in an expedient way I am sure landlords may be a bit more sympathetic and broaden their area of acceptance, and quite rightly as Marc said, it is the landlords choice.
For most landlords, this is either their business for income, or an investment for future pension security, either way, the business pays taxes and provides a home for someone, and for those investing for future pension security, reduces the potential burden on the tax payer / system in needing top ups in this ever increasing costly existence.
Have a great day and ‘if’ any of the trade bodies bother to read this then stop wasting time pointing fingers, but use this time and energy to help and encourage a way of lowering more draw bridges.
Also the referencing companies won’t take housing and some other benefits into account so they don’t pass referencing. If they haven’t passed the landlords can’t be offered rent protection insurance which many want, especially if they have a mortgage that needs paying. It’s so annoying how organisations like Shelter , and Which the other day over the deposit issue get loads of publicity saying how terrible landlords and agents are when they don’t even bother understanding the system. It’s not as if some of these rules and issues are even difficult to understand if they just asked a few agents the question why do you not allow benefit tenants!!
Good point, bridget. What if you know in advance that RGI (required by the LL) will not allow HB tenants…you’re not implementing a blanket ban yourself, you’re just turning folk away who inform you they are in receipt of benefit knowing it will waste their time and yours (and money too) to reference someone who won’t even get out of the starting block.
All I ever read in Property Eye these days is ‘could be breaking the law’, ‘could be breaking the law’, ‘could be breaking the law’, ‘could be breaking the law’, ‘could be breaking the law’, ‘could be breaking the law’, ‘could be breaking the law’, ‘could be breaking the law’.
This sickening virtue-signalling so-called Conservative government will eventually do to the private rented sector what Labour’s Rent Acts did a generation or more ago.
Polly Neate of shelter who earns £12,000 a month really has her finger on the pulse of how life works in the real world – NOT! As I have suggested on many occasions, these do gooders need to trial things before trying to slag off this industry! Polly, get yourselves some benefit tenants and report back in a year or so when your tenant is behind with rent and the council are advising the tenant to wait until eviction, see if your ideas are the same then!
about the same income as you then JC 🙂
Mr K, if I worked for a “charity” and earned that sort of salary, I would be embarrassed! It’s time that the general public were more informed about how much of the money that they put in the tin rattler’s tins actually goes to the charity rather than funding obscene wages for people who do not act in anyone’s best interest other that their own!
HEAR, HEAR, jeremy1960!
It’s appalling that charity fat cats get fatter on the money that is supposedly being raised to keep the needy alive, safe and well.
They regularly set their collection point outside M&S in our town. Maybe 3 meters away from a chap that sleeps on the street and genuinely rattles a cup.
The irony.
That is why I am picky about which charities I donate to. I generally drop a few pennies of change in the tins by tills, and whenever I clear clothes etc from the house, I take it all down to charity shops. I usually end up having a mooch and lugging half the bookshelf back with me…
The Chuggers in the street get avoided, or a polite “no thank you”. To start with…
But But But, we have to pay those mega salaries otherwise we wont get the caliber of people needed to do the job..
Said MP’s / Bankers / Corporate chiefs everywhere
Agree JC, the amount of money earned by the heads of these charities is somewhat scandalous, when you consider it is more than in most cases the PM
Bit one-sided IMHO.
Listened to LBC this morning on the subject and the interviewee was rightfully indignant at the treatment received by those disabled people on benefits he tries to help. But that is only one aspect. We operate a policy of handling each case on its merits but there are certainly landlords out there who feel under so much pressure due to recent government ‘initiatives’ that they want to choose who they have as tenants – and who can blame them? – particularly those for whom past experience with DSS tenants has been negative. Also, not that long ago, the government under pressure from the likes of Shelter saw fit in its infinite wisdom to switch benefit payments away from the landlord to the tenant, so giving the tenant an option to pay the rent or spend it in other ways. Not surprising in certain cases the rent didn’t get paid or got paid late. Let’s not forget there are also banks and insurance companies which stipulate ‘No DSS tenants’ in their T’s & C’s. What is Shelter proposing to do about that? Mystery shop them too? Personally I find it disgraceful that Shelter think they can name and shame with impunity in this manner. Agents affected should be consulting their lawyers.
I particularly like this response, here’s a few Shelter Facts-All public domain of course:
Shelter turned over in the period 31/03/17 £57,427.000 with salaries for the same period being £37,383.000. Believe it or not in this period they made a loss of £3,033,000
And according to public domain records they even have an active County Court Judgment13/06/2012 NORTHAMPTON CCMCC £5,705 Judgment 2YJ77112
Here’s an extract from Shelters website.
“Our core belief is that everyone should have a safe, secure and affordable home. We strive every day to give people the help they need, and campaign relentlessly to achieve our vision of a home for everyone”
Well, with 37 million a year on salaries that is a significant amount of relentless campaigning!!
Pointless exercise, the agents need to just remove their blanket ban but can decline applicants on a individual basis on income or whatever or on a property basis if the landlord says no. No need to have a ban you can have the same outcome. The campaign will not get one more tenant into a property that a landlord or agent doesn’t want there. Shelter yet again doing anything possible to attack agents / landlords
Well said Rayb
At least if you let them know up front that they’re not going to be successful, you’re not taking an application fee under false pretences.
I don’t get why letting agents are morally bankrupt because there isn’t enough social housing – why do we or landlords have a moral obligation if the government and councils don’t?
We don’t take DSS tenants – but we’ve never asked any further questions as to gender or circumstance after we establish where the bulk of their income is from.
The sad truth is you get more issues when taking tenants with housing benefit.
Their benefits can change and sadly you do get more issues regarding behaviour from them.
Given we are will no longer be able to charge a fee to tenants. Most letting agents want a stress free life.
I would suggest that Shelter yet again are pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable. It is not breaking the law to choose a tenant based on their ability to pay the rent, what i would suggest may be against the law is to name letting agents that Shelter feel are discriminating. This the companies concerned may feel breaches libel law.