Private landlords who reject housing benefit claimants could be breaking the law.
A recent legal case saw single mother Rosie Keogh win compensation for sex discrimination from a letting agency that refused to consider her as a tenant for a property in the Kings Heath area of Birmingham after she revealed that at least part of her rental payment would come via benefits.
Keogh, a cleaner and former paralegal, successfully argued that blanket bans on benefit claimants indirectly discriminated against women, especially single women, as they are proportionately more likely to be claiming housing benefit than single men.
She had been living in the same property for 11 years with the rent being paid in full every time.
After a letter of complaint was dismissed by the agents, the mother of one issued a claim for discrimination in the county court.
“I felt something had to be done to challenge it. I was motivated by anger at such inequitable practice,” said Keogh.
“It made me feel like a second-class citizen.
“You are being treated differently – and it’s women and women with children who are bearing the brunt of this because they need to work part-time.”
A survey of 1,137 private landlords for housing charity Shelter last year found that 43% had an outright ban on letting to such claimants. A further 18% preferred not to let to them.
Keogh was supported in her case by Shelter, whose legal officer Rose Arnall, commented: “By applying a blanket policy they are actually preventing good tenants from accessing the private rented sector.
“Women are more likely to be caring for children and therefore working part-time and are therefore more likely to top up their income by claiming housing benefit.”
Chris Norris, head of policy at the National Landlords Association, agreed there was no place for discrimination on the basis of someone’s gender.
He told the BBC: “Cases like this highlight the very worst of what a minority of renters have to put up with when looking to secure a home in the private rented sector.
“The number of landlords willing to rent to housing benefit tenants has fallen dramatically over the last few years because cuts to welfare and problems with the universal credit system are making it more and more difficult for anyone in receipt of housing support to pay their rent on time and sustain long-term tenancies.”
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Some mortgage lenders and insurance companies stipulate you can’t rent to DSS tenants so why should the landlord be penalised for that?
we all know where benefit claimants are concerned we stand a very high chance of not being paid, and this can be even more of a risk where single mums are concerned, u c is only going to make matters worse, maybe we should not put no dss in the advertisement, let them waste their time and ours we don't have to take anyone we don't like the look of, and we don't have to give a reason.
We have a number of landlords having to serve Section 21 notices to tenants that have had their benefits cut so are falling into rent arrears.
I was talking to a landlord yesterday that is having to do this, he agrees that is the local authority will pay market rent, pay the rent directly to the landlord and pay the rent monthly, he will consider tenants on benefits.
My proven experience with single mothers or low income families with children is that renovation costs will most likely be high or very high. That is just a fact and I make no comment but I will in future need a lot of good evidence about someone like that before I give them a tenancy. Give me the evidence of good house care and have it confirmed and I will be quite happy to risk it.
I think the local authorities should offer long term rental contract to private landlords, then they can house low income families and take the risks, rather than expecting private landlords to bear the responsibility of housing this category of tenants who previously may have been offered a council house.
I’m with Jo Beecroft on this. My insurance company will not insure my block of 10 flats because I have 1 DSS tenant. In fairness he’s been there 15 years always paid his rent. I now have to give him notice so I can insure my property. I know I’m going to get shafted by the council but what else can I do? Maybe the government should now help Landlords for a change and sort these irritating things out.
My properties My choice My decision who I rent to. My money used to purchase My choice of lender to support me My responcibility to pay the rent when due.
My decision Not to rent to benefit or UC persons.My decision to only rent to wage earning clean credit excellent references persons. What law have I broken?
The council broke a law and nobody has been charged for the highest death rate in the UK in a building owned by the council
Government fault this has happening with this crazy pay the Teanants law , the system worked well before !!! Complete nightmare now ! Government wasted billions on this new broken system !!!
To be honest I can't see why we landlords are getting so steamed up about this issue over and over and over again.
Don't want to let to dss? Fine no problem. Just dont put 'no dss' in your advert. You then waste a bit more of your time (as well as the unfortunate applicant that has no idea they're a non starter) viewing someone who you know you're not going to give it to along with others you will consider. Dss applicants just get told 'sorry you were unfortunate on this occasion'. Nobody is asking us to justify our decisions when we agree a let as far as I'm aware?
We got far bigger things to worry about than this seriously.
Let shelter and co believe they have won a battle when actually nothing has changed.
Simples! Now time to move on.
Please login to comment