x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Petition against ‘No DSS’ Rightmove listings hit 40,000 signatures

An online petition calling on Rightmove to ban ‘No DSS’ wording in rental adverts has attracted more than 40,000 signatures.

The petition follows on from the government’s plan to clampdown on buy-to-let landlords and letting agents posting ‘No DSS’ adverts that discriminate against tenants claiming housing benefit.

Competitor property website, Zoopla, has already announced that it is to issue ‘blanket bans against tenants in receipt of housing-related benefits’ by stopping ‘No DSS’ adverts on its platforms.

Tom Gatzen, co-founder of leading room share platform, ideal flatmate, said: “Refreshing to see one of leading names take a tougher stance on discrimination against tenants and hopefully the rest of the industry will now follow suit.

“It’s something that we moved to eradicate some time ago and we are always sure to block all adds of a discriminatory nature.”

Around 20% of people living in rented accommodation in the UK receive housing benefit.

Gatzen added: “Ultimately it’s the choice of the landlord as to who they wish to let their property to, but the UK rental market should serve all tenants regardless of financial situation, particularly those that arguably need it most.

“A proactive choice to refuse DSS tenants isn’t a million miles away from the discrimination against the Irish in the 50s and 60s by B&B owners and such regressive behaviour has no place in this day and age. 

“The stigma surrounding DSS is often misplaced and in fact, for those that find themselves in such a position through no fault of their own be it the loss of a job or through illness, this prejudiced attitude can often force them into homelessness which quite frankly is despicable.”

You can view the petition by clicking here.

Poll: Should Rightmove ban ‘No DSS’ wording in rental adverts?

PLACE YOUR VOTE BELOW

  • icon

    40000 people have wasted their time then
    Landlords will still reject these tenants if they wish to
    If as much effort was put into solving the problem why landlords reject such tenants some progress may be made

    icon

    I predicted that Rightmove would follow Zoopla in one of my previous posts.
    That's fine , if they want to play the game to not mention DSS in their adverts then so be it.
    It will just lead to a lot of rejections at the checking stage and will not only waste the landlord/agent's time, but also the tenant's time if he or she does not meet the criteria.

     
  • icon

    Just ask them if they say yes then say u will be in touch and don’t bother not rocket science. Pay the market rent pay Housing direct and issue goes away. Can’t believe how these parasites in London can’t see simple solutions .

  • icon

    Well don’t your discriminatory petition shouldn’t be allowed. I tried to vote but the plat form only allows you to vote for & not against this is another Rogue petition, no need to bring the Irish into it I was here in early 1960’s

  • icon

    They'll fail referencing so will end up losing their holding deposit anyway. And goes against most mortgage terms. Big waste of time.

  • icon

    I seen the notice Boards around Archway in 60’s saying no Irish and I didn’t have a problem with that at all. I was just delighted to know in advance. I wouldn’t want to go somewhere what I wasn’t wanted. Many w

  • icon

    If accepting DSS was as profitable as a private tenant why wouldn’t we take them. Reality is it’s an extra expense and headache to the landlord. 4 weekly arrears and when tenant decides not to fill a form in payment stops. Coaxing the tenant to go to housing to sort but they can’t cos this interferes with their social life during the day. If the government agreed to pick up my losses from renting to housing benefit to all my houses then it would be six figures every year!!

    icon

    Also, to put right any damage caused to the property by the tenant.

     
  • icon

    Virtue signalling. Can't force the PRS to become social landlords.

  • icon

    No daily curry eaters, no single mums, no pets, no Universal credit, nobody without excellent references, no body with advance rent unless foreign students with government sponsor letter. So so simple.

    icon

    Agreed, one thing us landlords are very good at, learning from past mistakes !

     
  • Paul Barrett

    It may NOT have been noticed by all those especially this idealflatmate idiot but a few years ago most LL would take on DSS tenants.
    The reason!?
    They were highly PROFITABLE!!
    But if you look back to those times there was much hate levelled at those LL accusing them of having their businesses SUBSIDISED by the Govt via HB.
    So these whingers were actually OBJECTING to private LL housing HB tenants and taking the King's shilling.
    Now we have the situation where for a wide variety of reasons many LL CHOOSE NOT to take on any HB tenant at the outset of a tenancy.
    Now because LL are refusing to take on HB tenants the same haters that accused LL of being subsidised by HB are now accusing LL of discriminating against those self same DSS tenants!!!!!!!
    Anybody see the dysfunction within the LL haters!!??
    It is make your mind up time haters.
    Do you want LL to house HB tenants or not!?
    If so then presumably the haters would stop hating agsinst the LL that do house DSS tenants.
    That being the case then the next thing the haters need to campaign for are the following to facilitate and encourage LL to take on DSS tenants.

    End 'clawback' possibilities when HB is paid direct to LL

    Ensure HB is the FIRST element deducted from the OBC amount.

    Ensure that any top up rent required is paid directly second from the monthly UC

    Ensure that the DWP funds 5 weeks deposit.

    Ensure that irrespective of any UC process that once a DSS tenant is given a LEGALLY binding AST that the DWP will pay the contractual rent in advance along with the 5 weeks deposit.

    The DWP to be an effective guarantor in case any UC claim or difficulties occur.

    To ensure that in the event of any eviction process that the DWP pays the full contactual rent until the tenant is evicted.

    Now we all know that none of this will ever occur which is why irrespective of alleged ability to pay I and many other LL will refuse to let to DSS tenants.
    Affordability even if a DSS tenant could plausibly manage this is NOT the only criteria that LL use to choose a tenant.
    It is generally the case that LL have nothing against DSS tenants per se.
    It is the dysfunctional system which serves them and the LL which is largely responsible for LL choosing to refuse to let to DSS tenants.
    There are of course a lot of Tory politics wrapped up with all this.
    The LL haters NEVER mention S24...................................funny that!!
    A major reason for LL no longer letting to DSS tenants is the HB is insufficient to cover S24 liabilities so forcing LL to take on more profitable tenants.
    It is also a fact that private rents vastly exceed the LHA rates.
    So LL naturally go for the tenants that they can achieve higher rents from.
    I'm afraid LL simply DON'T want to have anything to do with the HB system which means de facto that LL WON'T let to DSS tenants.



    icon

    Post of the Century on here Paul. Could have written every word of that myself.

     
    icon

    Agree with James, you have nailed it with this Paul.

     
  • icon

    Do property owning Labour Shadow Cabinet members who let out properties (yes there are) welcome DSS with open arms? Methinks not.

  • icon

    When are Shelter and their Govt sponsors going to campaign for supermarkets to sell a 50 pence loaf of bread for 40 pence to those on benefit, because they can't afford the market rate !
    Its really Economics for Dummies stuff. and I thought this country had long since tired of the ' Discrimination card '
    Its so confused and hypocritical.
    landlords must't receive Housing benefit subsidies as their " profiting " and
    Landlords are racially discriminating against tenants from overseas because of the fears of Right 2 Rent, but mustn't rent to someone if they get it wrong. !
    A rock and a hard place doesn't even begin to describe a landlords position out of constant conflicting meddling.

  • icon

    So the more that landlords are being pushed to take on DSS tenants the more will sell up. Little choice with S24. That means fewer properties to rent and the better off tenants will need to pay more to secure a place, and that leaves out DSS. Methinks the likes of Shelter et al, have not thought this through.

  • icon

    Tom Gatzen, co-founder of leading room share platform, ideal flatmate, said: ”the UK rental market should serve all tenants regardless of financial situation, particularly those that arguably need it most.”

    What claptrap. He is confusing the Private Rented Sector with the Welfare State

  • icon

    For the last 15yrs I use to house mainly DSS.
    I had a higher percentage of damaged properties lost rent eviction processes than landlords who did not take them.
    I have stopped now due to
    Long costly evictions
    smashed properties
    hate campaign against me from locals . I have been verbally abused in the street for housing them
    Rates that are so out of touch with market rents that it would put me in a loss situation
    section 24 which means I have to try and get the best rent possible with damage limitation
    a Housing needs department which continues to screw the landlord over
    Tenants cant afford or chose not to heat the property so more likely mould growth
    Dss tenants many leave house and gardens full of smashed up items, the cost of removal now can be 1000.
    Ucredit which is not fit for purpose. claims stopped all the time . Extremely hard for a landlord to make contact
    A legal system that not only supports but encourages tenants to not pay rent and trash property

    icon

    Anyone who advocates renting to DSS should read this post.
    Please send a copy to Shelter and the government.

     
  • icon

    I can’t understand why HB Tenants have far more rights & entitlements than hard working Tax Paying Tenants who have to pay for everything.

    icon

    It's called socialism.
    You are not entitled to be successful as that is anathema to this left-leaning philosophy.
    The fruits of your labour should be dedicated to the feckless and work shy.
    Just hope and pray that comrade Corbyn and McDonnell don't get elected, as things could get a lot worse for private landlords, who are probably at the top of the list for far-reaching reform. As if the Tories haven't done enough to achieve this already.

     
  • icon

    Best just keep running your businesses and ignore these parasites sucking us dry raise rents where u can and keep all our heads down I read these articles and think so what I’ll rent my houses to whoever I see fit and UC is a massive no just ask the question on the phone if they say I’m on UC say thanks but no thanks. All these policies are just propaganda to win votes and many buy it. Keep all your ridiculous anti landlord policies coming I don’t care and will adapt and survive it’s poor tenants who suffer in the end.

    icon

    Agreed we press on, pass increased costs onto the tenants, governments, tory or labour aren't going to beat me without a fight.

     
  • Paul Barrett

    @john hughes
    Very important points.
    All this stuff pales into significance if a Labour Govt wins power.
    There are sufficient voting idiots amongst the UK electorate that could well result in a Labour Govt.
    It may not be a majority Govt.
    Most likely it would be supported by the SNP.
    With the current political chaos the likelihood of a GE looks increasingly likely
    LL should read the Labour Manifesto and be very very afraid.
    What they have in store for the PRS DOESN'T bear thinking about.
    Unfortunately the Tories are a ridiculous political choice but they are less ridiculous than all other options.
    So there must be a majority Tory Govt returned at the next GE.
    Personally I'm working on the basis that the Tories WON'T be in power.
    But that is just my pessimistic nature.
    I am desperately endeavouring to get out of the PRS before the next GE.
    The last thing I need is for an early GE to occur resulting in a Labour Govt.
    You could even see forced billeting of UC tenants by Labour in privately owned rental properties!
    Govt will dictate the rent to be paid.
    The only way to avoid this is NOT to have a property advertised for letting on an AST.
    The proverbial writing is on the wall.
    The Tories have relatively gently attacked the PRS.
    This is nothing compared to what a Labour Govt will do.
    Labour seeks the extinction of the private LL class.
    Any LL who cannot see this is naive in the extreme!
    The first lot that will be got rid of will be the 25% of the PRS that are mortgaged sole traders.
    It is clear that for a start both the major parties would prefer to see the removal of mortgaged sole trader LL from the PRS.
    They DON'T care how this is done.
    But essentially they want to see the little man removed from the landlord class to leave just the rich running the PRS.
    The ability for the little man to enter the PRS via leverage has been a massive disruptor to the rich who traditionally operated the PRS.
    It is clear that the policy is to get rid of the mortgaged sole trader LL.
    Make them know their place!

    The problem with this is that this 25% of the PRS houses millions of tenants.
    Without this accommodation where are all the tenants supposed to live!?
    They certainly WON'T be occupying the former rental properties.
    But I do foresee with Labour a form of quasi nationalisation of a significant portion of the PRS for DSS tenants.
    The only way to avoid this is to sell affected properties.
    My preferred option irrespective of the cost is for a Govt to buy property on the open market as social housing.
    There would be many private LL more than willing to sell their current rental properties to the Govt at market prices.
    Govt could take a 100 year view on gilts to pay for this instant social housing provision.
    I am far from a socialist but due to RTB and MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION it is clear that the social housing sector needs to be restored to previous levels and expanded upon.
    But this will only work providing the borders are closed.
    It is simply impossible to build sufficient social housing to meet demand if the UK allows continued mass immigration.
    There are apparently about 400000 EU nationals occupying social housing............why!?
    Only British Nationals should have this ability.
    EU nationals can use the PRS or if they CAN'T afford that then go home!!
    No country can build their way out of a housing shortage if the borders are kept open to allow in the UK's case unlimited migration from the EU.
    It is simple practicality here.
    There will be obvious attempts to co-opt private LL capital to resolve problems of the Govt's own making.
    Personally I intend to withdraw my private capital from the AST PRS market and do something else with it.
    Not totally sure what I will do.
    But in extremis it will just be deposited in a savings account where it will remain socially useless whereas before it housed 14 people.
    Multiply my reaction by hundreds of thousands of other LL and you soon have a mass homelessness crisis.
    The vast majority of LL simply DON'T need to be LL; but ALL tenants desperately need LL to remain LL.
    But the way things are it seems the clever money is selling up; deleveraging, unencumbering and reducing portfolio size.
    Essentially to build up resilience to the worst that a Labour or Tory Govt might throw at them.
    Of course all this is very unfortunate for the poor old tenant.
    This is however NOT the fault of the private LL who would much prefer to remain as they are but without ALL the ridiculous actual punitive and threatened negative policies.
    As things are I prefer a ringside view and CAN'T wait to leave the PRS.
    I feel very vulnerable while I am still in it.
    I need to preserve my capital and realise what little gains I have made.
    Only by leaving the PRS can I be confident of achieving this.
    If this affects my tenants that is simply TOUGH!!
    I DON'T want to leave the PRS but due to bonkers policies existing and potentially soon to be enacted I am for the sake of self preservation being forced out of the AST PRS.
    Clearly there are other investment strategies to the AST market but I am simply not interested in them.
    I'm a simple soul for which the AST market was understandable.
    I could relatively easily manage those circumstances.
    I am simply NOT prepared to indulge in other more prosaic investment strategies.
    Until I can be confident that my capital WON'T be attacked I will remove it from that possibility.
    I am surely not the only LL that has such sentiments.
    The PRS simply cannot do without us as we house so many.
    There are simply not enough cash rich LL or those able to raise sufficient mortgage funds to be able to replace the mortgaged sole trader LL.
    In the coming years there will be tortuous times for all those in the PRS.
    All such a shame as had Govt left things alone everything was going swimmingly.
    The market was roughly providing what was required.
    Now all that has been put asunder to the detriment of everyone!!





  • icon

    So Mr T Gatzen you think it’s ok for every fifth one to have a free ride, so the other four are some fools.
    Can we not have a petition where we are allowed to vote against.

icon

Please login to comment

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit
sign up