Benefits claimants facing discrimination when trying to rent

In Wrexham, 87 per cent of landlords preferred not to rent to people on benefits, with a person with a pet more likely to be accepted that one claiming benefits.

In Flintshire, benefit claimants have a better change of renting, but still 67 per cent of landlords would prefer not to have them living in their property.

Last month, a judge ruled that blanket bans on renting properties to people on housing benefit were unlawful and discriminatory.

The judge ruled "No DSS" rental bans were against equality laws.

DSS is the initialism for the Department of Social Security, which was replaced in 2001 by the Department for Work and Pensions, and is used as a shorthand reference to mean benefits claimants.

Analysis of more than 9,000 rental listings on the website OpenRent found 76% of landlords preferred not to rent to people on benefits.

OpenRent's listings included a "tenant preference" with the option for landlords to tick or cross the description "DSS income accepted".

There were more listings on OpenRent among these 9,000 which would accept renters who owned pets rather than people claiming benefits, analysis revealed.

In Wrexham only five of 38 properties listed would accept someone on DSS income.

In Flintshire, the number was four of the 12 properties listed.

Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter, said: “No DSS’ discrimination is outdated, grossly unfair – and it’s unlawful under the Equality Act, as our recent landmark legal victory confirms. This is because it overwhelmingly prevents women and disabled people, who are more likely to need support paying their rent, from finding a safe home.

"Last month's ruling should be a wake-up call for landlords and letting agents to clean up their act and treat all renters equally.

"We won't stop fighting DSS discrimination until it's banished for good. OpenRent should ban landlords from advertising their properties as ‘DSS not accepted’ – and remind them of their legal duty not to discriminate. Otherwise, they are putting themselves and their landlords at risk of serious legal action.”

A spokesperson for the Equality and Human Right Commission, said: “These figures show that there is still some way to go before we can truly end the discrimination against women and disabled people who claim benefits.

“The recent ruling will go a long way to ensure all renters’ rights are equal, regardless of their life situation or background.

“If landlords and estate agents don’t change their policies and practices, they will be at risk of claims of discrimination from would be tenants.”

The National Residential Landlords Association's deputy director for policy and research John Stewart said it had "always advised landlords they should not blanket ban benefit claimants" but the "fundamental issue was the affordability of renting".

Mr Stewart said a number of factors could explain why rental listings would day benefit claimants weren't accepted:

• The timeliness and levels of benefit awards - including complaints about universal credit, a shortfall between housing benefit and private sector rents and in some cases, fluctuating levels of benefit income
• "Banks and insurers saw benefit claimants as higher risk" - some mortgage agreements blocked renting to claimants and landlords' insurance premiums were higher to rent to benefit claimants
• Landlords trying to avoid having to pay extra fees (since the Tenant Fees Act 2019) for tenants who would fail credit checks and references

However, he added that not accepting benefit claimants for rental properties was "likely to become more of an issue if the unemployment rates rise at the end of the furlough scheme".

He added: "We've discovered recently how people's circumstances can change at the drop of a hat.

"What landlords think might be a sound, sensible business decision [not to rent to benefit claimants] can soon not be."

Adam Hyslop, founder at OpenRent, said the figures did not reflect the significant work it had put into changing perceptions among landlords and ensuring they consider the widest range of tenants as possible for their properties.

He said: "We want to be clear that we fully support Shelter’s efforts to eliminate blanket bans and are pleased that there now appears to be legal precedent around these.

"OpenRent does not ban any group of tenants, and in the past year we have let over 25,000 properties where applications from benefit claimants were explicitly welcomed by the landlord. This is more than any other agent in the UK. We also know that many local authorities’ housing teams actively refer claimants to OpenRent as a good place to find suitable properties.

"We know that access to suitable properties for benefit claimants is a real and painful problem, and we want to solve the root causes of these issues. Our hope when we first discussed the topic with Shelter in 2018 was that they could use their considerable reach and voice in the media to work with us on these. Unfortunately their campaign, by focusing solely on wording in rental adverts, drags landlords who may currently have legal and financial blockers to being able to rent to certain tenants, into the same category as obviously unfair “blanket bans” like the one covered by the recent court ruling.

"Our belief, based on speaking to our customers including surveying hundreds of benefit claimants directly, is that applicants should be made aware upfront of any conditions of renting a property. CMA guidance for letting agents also supports this approach."

He added: "When applying for properties on OpenRent, tenants are always given the chance to explain their particular circumstances and suitability for a property - however currently a landlord might literally have a clause in their mortgage agreement that explicitly prohibits them from granting the tenancy. We’re committed to solving root causes like these, however in the meantime our customers are overwhelmingly telling us we should not be pretending the problem doesn’t exist. Hiding conditions of renting over which the landlord has no discretion only wastes time for all involved, and indeed makes the situation far worse for the very people Shelter is trying to help."