New guidance to letting agents has suggested the end of ‘no DSS’ tenants exclusions.
Mortgage contracts should no longer include the restriction in new contracts with buy-to-let landlords.
Picking out letting agents and portals, the Competition and Markets Authority said there should be no blanket bans on tenants in receipt of housing benefit.
An update to guidance for letting agents and landlords first issued in June 2014 was published yesterday.
On page 49 of the original guidance, letting agents were told that where a particular property cannot be let to a tenant on housing benefit – for example, because a mortgage contract specifies it – this must be drawn to the attention of a would-be tenant.
Equally, claiming that such a contract exists when it does not would be misleading.
Yesterday the Competition and Markets Authority went further.
It said it would be “concerned if terms that specify that a property cannot be occupied by a person in receipt of housing benefit are currently being included in any new contracts”.
While the CMA’s update clearly means that lenders should not specify that a property cannot be let to a tenant on benefits, it could also extend to other “new contracts” – for example, insurance, and lettings contracts themselves.
The CMA has prefaced its update by saying that in March, the Ministry of Housing “announced plans to look at letting adverts which potentially discriminate against would-be tenants on housing benefit and made clear these should end”.
The CMA says it is in the light of this that it has amended its guidance.
The advice itself on page 47 still says in a footnote about restrictions that they would need to be brought to the attention of prospective tenants.
However, the footnote adds: “The inclusion of housing benefit claimants as an example does not justify or excuse letting agents or property portals having blanket bans against those on housing benefit.”
Shelter quickly took to Twitter saying that this was a “welcome clarification” and that mortgage restrictions had been “unlawful all along”.
Both Rightmove and Zoopla have acted since March to phase out ‘No DSS’ tenants listings and pressure has been mounting for rejection of benefits tenants to end altogether.
Lettings platform OpenRent has recently admitted that two-thirds of its ads specify no DSS tenants.
Calls mount for crackdown on adverts which specify ‘No DSS’ tenants
Comments (16)
Presumably we are still able to require a homeowner guarantor for people that are in receipt of benefits?
There’s a simple solution here… Shelter should set up a guaranteed rent scheme for everyone on benefits! All the tenant has to do is pay their benefit to shelter and shelter pay the rent on behalf of the tenant directly to the landlord/agent. As people on benefits never default on their rent or cause any damage to property, Shelter have nothing to worry about and we can all live happily ever after.
Also, we could perhaps use the energy of the multitude of suns that shine out from the behind of all people who rent their homes to solve the looming energy crisis!
Anything else need fixing?
Lots of things ” CONCERN ” landlords, like Tenants unable to afford and pay the Rent.
I can quite easily imagine that would be a Big ‘ Concern ‘ to the Mortgage lender too !!!
State interference in Private Business, – because the state isn’t fulfilling its Housing responsibilities is a Big Mistake that only back-fires.
When will this be learned ?
People claiming benefits never pass the referencing criteria – so nothing really to be concerned about.
I’ve had households in receipt of in excess of £2500 per month of support – and that was 2 adults. They were both in receipt of a decent sum of money – each was legitimately claiming to be the other’s carer. On paper they passed referencing – but they were awful tenants.
Nuts. Blanket bans!!!! So landlords can individually still say “NO DSS”.
“The inclusion of housing benefit claimants as an example does not justify or excuse letting agents or property portals having blanket bans against those on housing benefit.”
Like this will make any difference.. landlords will manoeuvre round that easy enough doesn’t make one more DSS will get in a property
I suggest the numpties from the CMA spend a few frustrating hours dealing with the super numpties from the DWP/UC/LA and get absolutely nowhere and then tell me I should be taking benefit tenants. I won’t deal with B/Tenants simply because I refuse to deal with the clowns providing their funding.
And yet OpenRent continue to put this in bold on all their Rightmove ads. Different rules apply…::
What a load of old B~**@cks!
Benefit claimants do not meet my income referencing criteria. My ads will now publish the required houshold income – simple! I wonder if they’ll ban that. It just made it easier to deal with unwanted enquiries by stating NO BENEFIT.
I am old enough to remember when letting to DSS was an attractive alternative. The housing problem can be very easily resolved but, unfortunately, the decision makers are idiots.
I agree with TOZ4. Even since the fees ban I have significantly tightened up the critera to even carry out referencing to stop my waste of time on applicants that are unlikely to meet my insurers (rent guarantee) requirements. Shelter & Generation Rant seem totally intent on making it even more difficult for those poor souls at the bottom of the market as they drive landlords away from investing in residential property by expertly lobbying our somewhat simple self opinionated MPs. If you want landlords on side stop attacking them and work with them. Attack me and I will respond accordingly.
To reword the headline slightly…
”CMA encourages wasting DSS applicants’ time, by not declaring a Landlords’ right to refuse an application, at the point of enquiring …”
Excellent, more wasted time for everyone…
Have a happy and successful Friday!
watch out for fraudster applicants, trying to claim that you have discriminated against a *benefit applicant* and then trying to extract money from you or your insurers for hurt feelings. (I have seen a few in the south west especially)
So it is implying that insurance providers on matters like rent guarantee insurance will not be able to risk assess certain groups when setting its premiums. Shelter should put their money into providing housing rather than telling investors who they should accept as tenants.
“Shelter should put their money into providing housing rather than telling investors who they should accept as tenants.”
What money? Didn’t I read a while ago that this shower spent as much as they “earned” – mainly on big-wig salaries and premises costs for shops that lose money selling stuff they get given to them to sell?
You couldn’t make it up…
they are probably being paid by LLs to “occupy” their empty commercial property. It is a well known Rates avoidance scheme whereby by occupying as a charity they ensure the LL does not have to pay the empty property rates…… then the LL gives them a cut of their “saving”