Re: 'No DSS' unlawful
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2020 1:34 pm
Er...Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:47 amUnless there is a great oversupply of tenants compared to properties
Er...Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:47 amUnless there is a great oversupply of tenants compared to properties
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.Hunting Dog wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:17 pmHas 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.
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.discovolante wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:11 pmNumerous 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.
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).Hunting Dog wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:10 pmI 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.discovolante wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:11 pmNumerous 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.