The Property Ombudsman has renewed its warnings to agents after two tenants won out-of-court settlements against ‘No DSS’ letting agents.
TPO says that agents are reminded that they must not discriminate.
TPO has also said it will strengthen its Code of Practice to prohibit ‘No DSS’ clauses in rental adverts.
As reported by EYE, Amanda Staples and Emma Loffler both won out-of-court settlements in cases backed by Shelter, where they successfully argued indirect discrimination.
Yesterday, a local newspaper carried a report about Amanda Staples naming well-known agency Thomas Morris, saying that it barred her from renting a property, leading to a 13-month legal battle which ended in January this year.
The paper quotes managing director Simon Bradbury, who said: “We regret the distress to Ms Staples. It was an isolated incident following an employee’s misunderstanding of a rent guarantee insurance and associated credit reference criteria.
“We have subsequently introduced new training and processes to ensure that an incident of this kind is not repeated and remain committed to treating all of our customers fairly and to making sure that all tenant applicants have equal access to view any properties available through us.”
It is understood that neither the Staples nor Loffler case were the subject of resolutions at TPO, which last year handled 881 complaints about agents allegedly discriminating against consumers, and says that about 17% of all complaints last year were linked to some form of discrimination.
Ombudsman Katrine Sporle said: “Whilst rental properties are investments for landlords, they are homes for tenants.
“To be excluded from a significant portion of the homes available simply because you are in receipt of housing benefits cannot be considered as treating consumers equally.
“Tenants’ perceptions that they have been unfairly discriminated against underpin the significant number of the complaints received.
“TPO agrees that adverts which discriminate against would-be tenants in receipt of housing benefit should end.
“Making sure no one is excluded from applying for the home of their choice will go some way to reducing these complaints.”
She said that TPO is aware of certain circumstances in which mortgage lenders and insurance providers specifically exclude tenants in receipt of housing benefit.
She said that if this is the case, TPO would expect agents to evidence that and an explanation given to prospective tenants on an individual basis.
The current TPO code states under clauses 1e and 1f that agents must treat consumers fairly regardless of factors including race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, disability, pregnancy or nationality.
The code also warns that special care must be taken when dealing with consumers who might be disadvantaged because of a number of factors, including their economic circumstances.
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambs-mum-who-refused-house-17862630
Renters win out of court settlements from letting agents in ‘No DSS’ cases backed by Shelter
Are letting agents not paid to discriminate? We are duty bound to select the most suitable tenants for our landlords
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
From an agent’s perspective and when it comes to Tenants… we’re not paid, to not discriminate…
What a wonderful time to be alive!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Out of court is a private arrangement not winning a case. Other than winning by bullying.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Is it not the landlords decision to make? If the landlord instructs the agent not to take an applicant is it the agents fault? Is it a case of the agent going through the motions of viewings, taking the application, contacting the landlord, then the landlord turns down the applicant? Is the landlord then discriminating? Does the UC/HB/Shelter/applicant then take up a case against the agent or the landlord? If the landlord has already informed the agent they do not want this type of tenant, is it a case of wasting time to placate this group?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Silly mistake for the agent to make in these times .. these applicants can be declined for a whole host of reasons easy enough if they are not right for the property no need to advertise it. Landlord and agent bashing gone mad
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It essentially boils down to TPO suggesting that instead of making the Landlord’s decision regarding non-acceptance of HB/UC recipients, as Tenants (frequently a necessity due to mortgage provider’s stipulations and Rent protection/legal expense policy stipulations)…that Agents should essentially waste the applicant’s time by explaining this “on an individual basis”, and hide the reality until such a time as is considered nondiscriminatory (?)…what a complete waste of everyone’s time (including the applicant’s)…
Pandering at its most ludicrous!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I am afraid that wasting the applicant’s time is the logical consequence of this policy.
Landlords and agents would be well advised not to take holding deposits from impecunious tenants likely to fail referencing so that they can continue to advertise the property and, if desired, to take a holding deposit from a tenant who is more likely, on the face of it, to pass referencing.
Presumably agents and landlords will now ask applicants at the first contact: “We will be taking up references on you. Is there any reason why you might fail referencing, such as a CCJ or because of your financial circumstances?” If the tenant discloses the benefits (and they are not working) then they can be told: “It is likely you will fail referencing. Do you still wish to proceed?” which will weed out many people.
I fear this policy, combined with the proposed abolition of s21, will make many landlords even more wary than they are now of taking on tenants in receipt of benefits. The adverts may come change but the percentage of tenants on benefits being accepted by the PRS may go down.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“The code also warns that special care must be taken when dealing with consumers who might be disadvantaged because of a number of factors, including their economic circumstances.”
What an utterly stupid statement…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Why not simply state that to eligible to rent a property an applicants income needs to be at least X times the monthly rent?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Yes, because if tenants have to pay a third of their salary, people like Sadiq Khan call for rent controls. So we should look at rent being, for example, no more than a quarter of a tenant’s income. They, of course, want it both ways though – for us to ignore the fact that the rent would take half of someone’s Universal Credit for example, leaving them unable to manage and us then having Shelter et al on our case and on the other hand, we are terrible if we charge as much as a third of their income. The idea also that the rent should no longer relate to the market and to landlords’ outgoings but to a potential tenant’, whose circumstances can change at any time, is farcical. I don’t see them also proposing this for groceries – that tenants pay what they can afford for their bread, milk, booze and fags, based on their income.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I agree Ros and of course Khan’s plan will backfire because if rent is to be reduced to match the tenant’s income, landlords will be even choosier about low-income tenants and those with an irregular income. As landlords withdraw from the market, those that are left can more easily turn away the poorest tenants. Is that what Khan wants? It is the natural consequence of his proposal.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Does this mean that agents cannot accept results of references? Is this the start of the, stop landlords from rejecting tenants that apply.
Think about it, you always discriminate on the suitability of the tenant for a landlord … you have a duty of care …. Hello TPO!!!!
Does the landlord not have the right to say who to allow into his property? Does the landlord find he has insurers who will not provide cover for those that have no guaranteed income? Benefits are declared by Government as ‘Not Guaranteed Income’ and very quick to claw back from the landlord when over paid or tenant not entitled.
“No DSS” was generically referring to those that are not in work and cannot afford to rent, a very high risk for a landlord and not the type of tenant he wants for financial risks. It saves everyone, including the tenant from wasting their time applying for a tenancy that their financial profile will not meet to the satisfaction of the landlord. This has all come about by trying to use the PRS for social housing.
Shelter and the like have manipulated this scenario to their own ends but will not stop agents or landlords from coming to a conclusion who they want in the property and for very obvious and sensible reasons. It will just go underground …… has!!!!!!!!!
TPO you are stupid to get involved. Section 2 of the ‘Code of Practice’ makes it clear (what a wishy washy nonsense it is, if you take NO DSS into account). Is it currently illegal to discriminate ‘NO DSS’ in law? and would be at complete odds with all matters and industries that require credit passing. (ie Subject to Status). I suspect they are trying to challenge discriminating without first taking an individual tenant actual profile into account by blocking with No DSS.
Next we will hear banning tenant requirement of ‘Guaranteed income’ and ‘affordability’!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Absolutely Woodentop…
However, you seem to be applying a rare attribute to your commentary (which seemingly becomes increasingly rarer, each day I awake and read PIE)…it is called ”common-sense”…
This is 2020 after all…and ”common-sense” could be considered ‘discriminatory’ by TPO (discriminatory against those who have none?)…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The regulations have gone mad in lettings.
The tenant has so much power its ridiculous.
However it is across the board with GDPR. We have turned our country into America where its ok to sue everyone.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
See my ” Advice to Letting Agents and Landlords ” ( currently, second post down ) on ;
https://www.facebook.com/pg/possessionfriend/posts/?ref=page_internal
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register