We have seen the topic of ‘No DSS’ discrimination gain significant traction over the last couple of years, with the largest portals removing ‘No DSS’ advertisements from their sites.

This was a welcome step forward but it is clear that this is an issue which will continue to run with contrasting views from landlords, agents and tenant groups.

At the recent TPO Consumer Forum, Shelter discussed the issue with other forum members which included the NRLA.

What was apparent from that discussion and from the comments made in the trade press is that, generally, no-one wants to discriminate, but that landlords do have concerns about how the Universal Credit/Housing Benefit system works (essentially, the lack of direct payments), problems in the process for evicting tenants who breach the terms of their tenancy agreements and, in some cases, clauses within mortgage or insurance policies that prevent letting to ‘DSS’ tenants.

In contrast, Shelter’s recent research shows that ‘No DSS’ policies put women and those with disabilities at a particular disadvantage because they are more likely to be in receipt of housing benefit, and therefore disproportionately affected by blanket “No DSS” policies.

This was evidenced in a case this week, where tenant, Rosie Keogh, had excellent references from previous landlords, a professional guarantor and the ability to pay up to six months’ rent in advance, should it have been requested.

However, she was refused a tenancy based on the agent’s long-standing ‘No DSS’ policy which they claimed prevented them from letting property to tenants in receipt of housing benefit.

It appears that, in this case at least, discrimination occurred because of the perception of the benefits system Ms Keogh found herself in.

However, a landmark ruling by District Judge Victoria Elizabeth Mark at York County Court has judged housing benefit discrimination as unlawful and in breach of the Equality Act.

This case sends a clear warning to landlords and letting agents that rejecting tenancy applications solely on the grounds that the applicant is in receipt of housing benefit is unlawfully indirectly discriminatory and could put them at risk of legal action.

It also suggests that clauses within mortgage and insurance policies that exclude ‘DSS’ tenants could be challenged and are potentially unenforceable.

While mortgage policies and benefit systems will go on being debated, the immediate and significant concern is that the COVID-19 pandemic has forced millions of people to apply for Universal Credit, many of whom will have been tenants for many years.

If agents and landlords were to apply ‘No DSS’ rules to all tenancies, there is the potential of a significant rise in people facing homelessness.

However, I am absolutely sure that neither tenants, landlords nor agents want this situation to occur.

In fact, I would suggest that because of this unprecedented situation there is a real opportunity right now for all sides to come together to work through these problems to find a solution which ends ‘DSS’ discrimination while providing landlords and agents with the confidence that rent will be paid and mortgage and insurance policies allow them to accept whichever tenant they choose.

I also have little doubt that we will return to this issue at the next TPO Consumer and Industry Forums.

In the meantime, I would reiterate the comments made in a previous Eye article of 5 March [see below] and remind letting agents of their general obligations against discrimination as stated in 1e and 1f of TPO’s Codes of Practice for Letting Agents:

1e. You must treat consumers equally regardless of their race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, gender recognition, disability, pregnancy or maternity, or nationality. Unlawful discrimination includes giving less favourable treatment because someone is perceived to have one of these personal characteristics or because they are associated with a person with such a characteristic.

1f. You should take special care when dealing with consumers who might be disadvantaged because of factors such as their age, infirmity, lack of knowledge, lack of linguistic or numeracy ability, economic circumstances, bereavement or do not speak English as a first language

I would also strongly advise agents that where they are informed by landlords that their mortgage lenders / insurance providers specifically exclude tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit, they obtain written evidence that this is the case and provide a clear explanation to prospective tenants on an individual basis.

 

Property Ombudsman renews warnings to agents about ‘No DSS’ adverts after tenants’ victories