Page 3 of 3

Re: 'No DSS' unlawful

Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2020 1:34 pm
by Bird on a Fire
Millennie Al wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:47 am
Unless there is a great oversupply of tenants compared to properties
Er...

Re: 'No DSS' unlawful

Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:56 pm
by discovolante

Re: 'No DSS' unlawful

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:17 pm
by Hunting Dog
Has anyone looked at the stance of insurance companies? I'm the landlord of one property (due to inheritance) and current tenants are employed, but I noticed whilst trying to arrange buildings insurance that the broker, so presumably also companies, wanted to be assured that the tenants were 'professional' and not on benefits (and I wasn't even trying to get rent protection). I can't find much about that directly online except this article which alludes to insurance companies and buy-to-let mortgage providers not liking tenants on benefits.

If things are going to get fairer for tenants on benefits, then perhaps the legal challenges also need to consider the behaviour of insurance and mortgage companies so that landlords that would like to accept 'DHSS' aren't penalised for it.

Re: 'No DSS' unlawful

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:11 pm
by discovolante
Hunting Dog wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:17 pm
Has anyone looked at the stance of insurance companies? I'm the landlord of one property (due to inheritance) and current tenants are employed, but I noticed whilst trying to arrange buildings insurance that the broker, so presumably also companies, wanted to be assured that the tenants were 'professional' and not on benefits (and I wasn't even trying to get rent protection). I can't find much about that directly online except this article which alludes to insurance companies and buy-to-let mortgage providers not liking tenants on benefits.

If things are going to get fairer for tenants on benefits, then perhaps the legal challenges also need to consider the behaviour of insurance and mortgage companies so that landlords that would like to accept 'DHSS' aren't penalised for it.
Numerous letting agents use that as a blanket excuse without checking the actual mortgage terms; certainly far from all of them have that requirement. And if you have to refuse someone because you would otherwise be in breach of your mortgage terms, then you can argue that in your defence.

There is a blog from Shelter about it here: https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2018/11/how ... imination/

If you were advising a tenant about this you would probably want to invite the landlord to share details of the relevant mortgage terms and before starting formal court proceedings.

Re: 'No DSS' unlawful

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:10 pm
by Hunting Dog
discovolante wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:11 pm
Numerous letting agents use that as a blanket excuse without checking the actual mortgage terms; certainly far from all of them have that requirement. And if you have to refuse someone because you would otherwise be in breach of your mortgage terms, then you can argue that in your defence.
I wasn't so much thinking about it as a defence or reason for individual cases, but more why Shelter or other interested parties don't do more in terms of test cases against insurers or mortgage companies, that the difference in price or non-availability of cover is discriminatory. Much like the action against cheaper car insurance for women.

Re: 'No DSS' unlawful

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:57 pm
by discovolante
Hunting Dog wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:10 pm
discovolante wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:11 pm
Numerous letting agents use that as a blanket excuse without checking the actual mortgage terms; certainly far from all of them have that requirement. And if you have to refuse someone because you would otherwise be in breach of your mortgage terms, then you can argue that in your defence.
I wasn't so much thinking about it as a defence or reason for individual cases, but more why Shelter or other interested parties don't do more in terms of test cases against insurers or mortgage companies, that the difference in price or non-availability of cover is discriminatory. Much like the action against cheaper car insurance for women.
The blog I linked to suggests that the number of lenders with these sorts of policies may be falling, and might now be in the minority (and they also comment on the number of landlords who may own the property outright anyway).

Doing 'more'...well, from a practical perspective this litigation has taken years to lead to an actual court decision, they do not have armies of lawyers on hand to immediately try out every type of case available.

Legally...I may be suffering from an imagination deficit but I am not sure exactly how a tenant would bring a claim against their potential landlord's mortgage lender. They would need to show e.g. that the lender was somehow providing a service to them (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/3), which I think would be a bit of a stretch. Alternatively if Shelter etc were to act for a landlord, who would be receiving a 'service' (but as a member of the public?), the difficulty there is that the landlord is not the person who is being discriminated against in terms of a protected characteristic.

I could be totally wrong about that, I often am, but at first glance I'm not sure how that kind of action could be made to fit within the legislative framework so far as discrimination/equality law is concerned. Part of the reason I feel like I'm missing something obvious is because this in theory could let them get away with e.g. a 'no gay/black/disabled tenants' policy, which can't be right, however that would be direct discrimination which is drafted more broadly and prevents discrimination because of 'a' protected characteristic, rather than the protected characteristic of the particular person they are providing the service to. So presumably if a landlord wanted to let a property out to say, a black person, and the mortgage lender said no because the tenant was black, the lender would be treating the landlord less favourably than they would treat a landlord who wanted to let to a tenant who wasnt black, which it seems could amount to unlawful discrimination?

But I might be talking out of my arse. The usual example given for that type of discrimination is e.g. unfavorable treatment of say, carers of disabled people, and I haven't really thought about it from that kind of angle before.

I mean all that aside, you could always raise this with the broker and ask why they are continuing with that policy in light of the recent cases. And then if they give you a crappy answer, maybe contact Shelter and see if they are interested in gathering this sort of info? It's only through making contact with people affected by it that they can do anything about it, after all.