Newsmedianews | No DSS thank you ...

Newsmedianews ads

Updated
Ammended Monday, 17 August, 2020 by the editor

manufactured composite image

“NO DSS makes no economic sense - hence the only reason for its imposition can be prejudice based on uninformed stereotyping of a DSS tenant. It is not just landlords & letting agents that have to be taken to task over this - but mortgage lenders.”
Reader’s comment

View poll, poll results and comments

Update—July 2020
UK District Judge Victoria Mark in York County Court on 1 July has ruled: "Rejecting tenancy applications because the applicant is in receipt of housing benefit was unlawfully discriminating on the grounds of sex and disability".

And this was, therefore, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, she said.

Update—February 2016
Ireland has passed legislation outlawing landlord discrimination against recipients of State welfare rent allowance benefits.

Advertisement
“ Nice room to let in quiet secluded house. Use of all mod cons. Free radio broadband & unlimited telephone calls. Parking. No DSS.”

The above advertisement was taken from an Internet letting agency website. Similarly worded advertisements—No DSS (Department of Social Security claimants–recipients of state welfare)—appear daily in regional and national newspapers. If they are considered ‘legal’, then the author of this item considers this is contrary to established law relating to discrimination.

If a similar advertisement appeared in print stating ‘No Blacks’ or ‘No Pakistani’s, or ‘no single parents’ or even ‘no gays’ then the publisher would most certainly be faced with prosecution for permitting the publication of discriminatory advertisements.

To see how common this discriminate form of advertising and rental is, Google search the term ‘no dss’.

Some landlord’s refuse to accept recipients of DSS because they do not wish to disclose that they are letting properties on the rental market. Whenever a DSS claimant makes an application for housing benefit (social welfare rent payments), the landlord is registered on the local council’s records and as a result also with the Inland Revenue services.

However, many people in receipt of DSS allowances are not simply just out of work, they are in receipt of disability and incapacity allowances. And in their cases, advertisements that state ‘no DSS’ are actively discriminating against their status as disabled people. I am one of them. And what about people in receipt of state pensions?

Importantly, many people struggling to make a living receive (in the UK) Family Tax Credits—an income supplement, which also entitles them to housing benefit and council tax benefits. These people are all too often tarred with the brush of receiving DSS. Is this a just and fair system?

In 1988 I had parted from my wife and two daughters and although we attempted a reconciliation, in 1989 we agreed to divorce and go our separate ways, our daughters remaining with my wife. In 1990, I moved away to another location in the UK and started a new job.

In 1995, following my return from a charity trip into central Bosnia, I went through a very difficult personal crisis and quit my job and home in Hampshire and went to Ireland, and on to the USA for 12 months before returning to Ireland and settling in Limerick City in Ireland.

Health issues began to trouble me and in 1998 I was registered as disabled by the Irish health services. Unable to properly continue in my profession as a qualified staff journalist, I set up this news-based website. I was also able to continue working as a freelance journalist and over the years I spent in Ireland my work appeared in all of the daily national newspapers and most of the Sunday national papers. As a freelance writer/editor I was also asked to review and comment on new books due to go into print and my comments have been published in them.

I lost contact with my daughters after traveling to the USA and although I attempted to re-establish contact, I was unable to secure any replies from them or their mother and believed they had moved to another location. Extensive searches via the Internet failed to produce any results. Then, in December 2005, I located a reference on the Internet to my brother-in-law in Sussex. There was no contact information in the item but a letter to the Sussex Evening Argus produced an almost immediate response from someone who knew him.

Through this contact I was able to learn that my daughters and former wife in fact still lived at the same address and we re-established contact with each other. After six months of communicating with my former wife, who traveled to Ireland to visit me, she invited me to return to the family home in the UK.

Little did I realise just what indifference I would be returning when I decided to return to my home country in June, 2005.

I returned with nothing more than a few bags of clothing and my computer equipment and set about the business of applying for my disability allowance—in my case in the UK its equivalent being an incapacity allowance. European (EU) legislation means that any EU citizen in now entitled to receive an allowance awarded to him or her by an EU member country in any other EU member country. It is now November 2006 as I update this article, some 17 months since my return to the UK, and my allowance has still not been cleared or settled.

It took until November 2005 until the UK department dealing with it decided that my ‘claim’ had to be sent to Ireland as the ‘qualifying authority’—meaning the authority who had granted the allowance to begin. The idiotic and indifferent bureaucracy is absolutely beyond belief.

The attempted reunion with my former wife did not work and within six weeks of my having quit the life I had built for myself in Ireland, I found myself homeless in the UK. A good friend who I had first met in Ireland, a German man with a family, heard of my desperate situation and immediately offered his help, stating that I should come and stay with them until I was able to sort something else out.

That was in July 2005. Lacking any deposit money for a down payment on a place to live, I was unable to secure anywhere to live. Requests to Basildon council in whose region I had become homeless and where my family still lived fell on deaf ears. ‘We cannot help’ was the only response I received.

Likewise requests to the council in the area in which I was staying with my friends brought the same dismal lack of assistance. Despite living with a family of four, which includes two school-aged boys, and having to sleep in a makeshift bed in the family’s living room with my clothes still in a traveling bag, I was, the council said, not considered as a priority.

They could, a housing advisor said, point me towards a private landlord as the council maintained a list of such. When I explained that it was pointless me approaching a private landlord as I lacked the money for a deposit and monthly rental in advance, the only advice I was given was to approach the local JobCentre and request a community care grant or a budgeting loan. This I did, with the request for £750 to cover one month rental and deposit. The loan they granted was £420—useless to all intent and purpose.

Aside from my personal experiences related to this article — all events have a personal connection or they become meaningless — I return to the title of this article—No DSS here. A good friend in Ireland, aware of my predicament, came into some money and kindly offered to make available to me sufficient cash to cover a rental deposit for a place to stay and one month’s rental in advance.

Armed with this possibility, I began a search for available properties to rent and came across advertisements stating that the landlord would not accept any tenants who were in receipt of State welfare. True figures of claimant numbers are vey difficult to obtain from the UK Government to any degree of real accuracy. Statistics to measure those in receipt of unemployment or other state benefits have been manipulated to such a degree as to have become all but meaningless.

According to the UK Government's national statistics office website, the number claiming unemployment benefit, i.e., JobSeekers Allowance, stood at 919,700 in February 2006. It is unclear if these figures include all claimants, those on sick-related benefits such as disability and incapacity allowances.

What is clear is that if all landlords operated a policy of refusing to house DSS claimants, then in February 2006 there would have been 919,700 people, and their families where applicable, homeless. Is this an acceptable state of affairs?

It would surely be prejudicial discrimination if any landlord revoked a tenancy because a particular existing tenant became either unemployed or ill and as a result started to receive state benefits, including housing benefit. Why then are landlords—and more importantly publishers—able to publish advertisements that discriminate against people who have done nothing wrong?

Despite repeated requests for a comment from the Advertising Standards Authority with regard to their stance on this issue, no reponse has been received from them since this article was published.

VOTE on the issues
Back to story start

Should "No DSS" be unlawful prejudicial discrimination?

	Yes - 50.6%
	NEW Legislation should make it unlawful to say 'No DSS' - 34.6%
	No - 8.9%
	Publishers who print such ads should be prosecuted - 5.3%
	I don't care - 0.6%
	Total votes: 975 Add comment

M Nugent mumdadnug@hotmail.com - 02/01/2010 10:08

I am a licensed registered landlord. I have had many "DSS" tenants over the years just normal people fallen on hard times. This morning I had a call from the latest "they were leaving" why? because after 4 months enjoying their"housing allowance" this money will be paid directly to me... They are permitted by law to pocket thisallowance for two months, and allowed to keep the 2 months paid to them "in error" by our local authority. They have not just lived rent free , they have been paid to live there! I could of course go to court and waste more money and heartache. but unless they win the lottery and remember me I have no real chance of getting any of this money back. This has happened to me 3 times in 18 months. If you think about the sums involved the temptation is irresistable. I imagine around the country many millions of pounds are involved. That is why in future I and other small landlords will be relucant to accept anyone in receipt of housing allowance.

Bob Macbigg bobmacbigg@googlemail.com - 18/09/2009 16:33

The No DSS is horribly familiar to me as I am in receipt of the sickness DSS!

Sometimes, I've been able to win a landlord round, by introducing myself, and letting him have references from my previous tenancies, or letting him phone the previous agents and landlords.

On the other hand, though, most of the trouble I've seen in rented property has been from people "on the dole" - I can understand thei landlords rule.

It has to be seen to be believed what some people do to a property - giving all of us a bad name.

What to do?

Make discrimination illegal; and at the same time allow the law to more fully protect the landlord from the lousy tenant, at the moment landlords can be at a distinct disadvantage.

Juliana Webb julianawebb@btconnect.com - 02/04/2009 09:24

Good morning. I work for an Estate Agents in South Norwood London. We accept DSS tenants and most of our Landlords accept. Most of the other agents in this high street dont. Claiming any kind of benifit does not make a person any less human, if fact we have had some workers that you would be shocked at how they keep the place they rent and also how they leave it. I am not advertising where I work just wanted to show support to you.

Kind regards.

Gordon mail@actimicpcb.com - 19/01/2009 21:36

Techinically it is already unlawful to refuse a tenancy because a person is in receipt of benefits. This falls under the Disability Act, as it means that a person with a disability in receipt of beneifits would be prejudiced against.

In effect the phrase has no legal meaning, which means technically that saying 'No DSS' has no legal effect. In short they can say what they like, but cannot enforce it. This is similar to someone posting a notice in their shop saying "No Refunds Given" they can say that as much as they like, but if they sell you goods of unmerchantable qauality, and can offer no other remedy they are legally obliged to refund your money.

So it's as well to regard this phrase as so much flanell.

However, unlawful does not mean illegal. Illegal means it is a criminal offence, unlawful is a civil offence. One you canbe jailed for or fined by a court, the other has to be persued on your behalf. It only becomes illegal if the loser then refuses to comply with the court's ruling. Though they can still procrastinate by appealing it.

Should however a person be evicted if they were already a tennant that would be illegal. There would be consequences, but the likley outcome would be a fine, and perhaps compensation. But of course we know that many landlords and other busiensses regard that as an acceptable risk.

It may be the case that a tenant unable to pay while housing allowance is being processed is evicted for arrears. This is another problem.

However, just as in the 'no refunds' case making the law work is difficult. In the case of the shopkeeper he might insist on concrete proof of purchase, and then still refuse to refund, leaving you with the choice of walking away, getting a lawyer onto the case, contacting trading standards ets. The chances of getting your cash back may be slim, or simply not worth the effort.

The only real solution is to insist that first advertising as such must itslef be made illegal. Early last year it was made illegal for sellers to place terms in their contract of sale which misrepresented the law. They could simply place a 'subject to UK law' disclaimer in the terms. This is now no longer good enough.

Something similar should be applied to letting agreements and advertising.

First, it should be made illegal to refuse a tenancy on the grounds that an applicant is in receipt of benefits or allowances if any kind as part of housing legislature directly. Not as a spin-off from some other piece of law.

Second, to make this enforcable, all landlords should be registered and licenced. Ie, make it illegal with an accompanying fine and possible jail term should anyone not so licenced be found to be letting property.

Ok, you may say but if this happens what about the tenants? Easy. Free rent for the duration. And what if this means the property is mortgaged and may be reposesessed?

Well, the mortgage lender will have to find a buyer for the property as a business.

This will make mortgage companies steer well clear of people wanting a mortgage to let without establishing that they have applied for a letting licence in respect of the property.

(See all fixed!)

In addition it should be made a criminal offence to advertise property for let with such restrictions.

Some will argue that this will force rents up, but not so. There was a real problem with slum porperties before WW2. (Read The Road To Wigan Pier.) The big problem here was that landlords owning one or two properies could not make enough out of the rent, to maintain the property and make a decent living. Paradoxically perhaps, this mean that large 'fat cat' landlords charged lower rents for better maintained property.

If we look carefully at that we can see that the 'buy to rent' market, which encourages small 'property developers' to get involved in the busines of letting, is a barrier to good affordable low-end rented property.

A licencing scheme with teeth would ensure that these small operators who see applying certain minimum standards as a major expnse that they can ill afford, will not be able to 'afford' the venture, leaving it to those who can.

This should go a distance to alleviate the slow allocation of allownaces being such a great problem. After all a large letting business can allow a longer period of arrears to build. This could be further alliviated by insisting that wahtever the final judgement, the full rent should be paid right up until the moment the payments are made irrespective of the calculation.

This will ensure that there is little or no risk to landlords, and at the sme time provide a real spur to authorities who are slow at performing these assesments. Essentially a fine on a concil who fails to deal with applications in a timely manner. (This must include safeguards against short-cut decilnations.)

Of course post WW2 the probelm was slaved by the relatively simple expedient of building houses available for rent. And that has some merit. After all, rental income form council housing can provide a real long term income for councils.

Except of course 'right to buy' get's in the way, and this should be carefully examined.

The rules under right to buy have recently been tightened to require a 5 year tenancy before you may apply, and other restrictoins apply, but to my mind this is not quite enough. In my view there should be a positive financial incentive for councils and other bodies to invest more in socialy affordable housing at all levels.

For example in some areas you could get ?38,000 discounted on the price after only five years, or about ?150 for every week of your tenancy. That's a substantial discount on your first five years rent!

sarah sarahbioletti@yahoo.co.uk - 02/07/2008 15:02

Having rented properties to various people over a number of years the problem with DSS tenants is not the tenants but the attitude of the DSS. I have had to wait for up to 10 months before for any rent from a DSS tenant just because the DSS are totally incompetent. One of my tenants is currently in receipt of DSS payments and the arrears on the account are now 2 months. This is not the tenants fault but I just can't afford to be an extension of the social services just because the DSS are totally incompetent. I think you will find that this is why most landlords avoid DSS tenants like the plague

< 1 | 2 | >

Advanced Poll

Have you been refused accommodation on DSS

More polls

Ali - 31/08/2009 10:24

My husband is disabled and blind, I am his full time care. We worked up until 4 yrs ago, and we are middle aged.We privately rent a 3 bedroom house, way too big for us, so we are looking to downsize, preferably to a bungalow. We cant have a bungalow via the local authority because we're not pensionable age. It seems crazy that we have the rent paid direct to a landlord, it's a guarranteed rent payment, references yet we cannot get a bungalow that e sp despararetly need and in the meantime we are wasting a good 3bedroom home that would suit a family. Discrimination and madness....

tina tinal36@talktalk.net - 21/04/2009 12:19

I moved down south 3 years ago, i rang every agent and landlord in the paper and phone book, i was working part time, studying for A levels and bringing up 4 children because my other half had dedcided to disappear with the little savings we had!! No one was willing to accept DSS as its called, except the very last call i made to a private landlord, he said he didn't accept due to bad past experience, i then informed him i had 2 years of renting privately and references, so he gave us a chance and a home, i paid a months deposit and a month in advance and i reassured him with a Pre-determination (or something along those lines!) basically its a form you get from the council and they detemine average how much rent they will pay. I have a Local Housing Allowance, which means it gets paid direct to me i then transfer it direct to my landlords account. So I now have 5 years worth of references......but still i cannot get a bigger much needed property, because we are tarred with the "DSS" scabby brush!!!

Kelly onlyme1981@hotmail.co.uk - 11/09/2008 12:21

I'm 27 and am currently in Temporary accomodation. I was in a Homeless Hostel for 2 and a half years and got moved out 6 months ago, into this temporary property through a Housing Association. I'm single and the flat I'm in at the moment is nice but tiny. I get full housing benefit as the rent on the place is so high. Currently it stands at ?165 a week. I'm on the Council list but could be waiting for 10 years +. I recently phoned the local benefits office to see how much they would pay towards Private rent. The figure came back at ?524 a month. Great...or so I thought. I've contacted many landlords and all have said no, because I'm on Housing Benefit. I'm in a bit of a catch 22 position really. I'd love to work full time but that would mean I have to pay full rent where I am now, meaning I'd have hardly any money left for bills or to get by. I work part time at the moment and even that is a massive stretch, financially. The whole system just gets you stuck on benefit and the housing rents are becoming ridiculous! I'd need to be earning more than ?18,000 a year just to get by. I'd love to earn that amount of money, and some day I might, but right now it's tough trying to find somewhere to settle and afford! Everywhere I've looked it says No DSS. It's totally discriminatory. I could get proper references and anything else required but no one is willing to take a chance on me. I'm not a drunk, drug user. I'm a respectable person who hasn't always made the best choices in life and who has a medical problem....some of it may be my fault but the medical problem certainly isn't and I'd just like to be given a break! I've rambled a bit...sorry :D

tracy allison.ian@btinternet.com - 09/08/2008 15:29

I am 40 years old have 3 sons 2 are 16 and 17 and in full time education my older son 21 is self employed.
I work part time, but one of my younger sons has special needs and I claim benifit for him thus I am unable to work full time I receive tax credits
We can not find a place to live as I am divorced and am loosing my home, it is very hard to find a 4 bed house that will accept pets to be rented to people who are self employed or on benifit.
I have read on the internet many comments from people regarding benifit claiments and was very upset to read comments such as dss means scrounging, drunken scum who will reck your rental home, and dss means drug adicts in your house.
I also read an article which called us knickerless hookers hooked on dope, fags and booze.
Not all of us behave in this manner some of us are good hard working people who have not had life quite so easy as those making the comments about us.
something should really be done about this kind of discrimination.

donna warren donnawheeler39@yahoo.co.uk - 16/04/2008 10:46

im a mother of three and a quallified classroom assistent,but am out of work at the momment and am happy at home raising my children.I am a responsible respective person but finding it immpossible to rent anything,because knowone will accept dss.I am entitled to ?1100 a month benefit for rent and it goes straight to the landlord,wheres the risk? just because someone is on benefits doesent mean thier 'dossers'.My friend is a fulltime worker and he is about to be evicted for not paying his rent and missusing the property. Your local council can tell you of dss friendly agents(altough they are few and far between) and gumtree.com gets private landlords who will accept dss.its very degrading and upsetting being turned down everywhere you go just because ive chosen to raise my children myself rather than let someone else do it so i can work.Even if i did go back to work when my kids reach school age,im a single parent,i would still need financial help to pay my rent and be in the sae situation.its very unfair.there should be a law that all agents must offer some of the propertys on thier books to dss claiments,i mean we are human after all.

< 1 | 2 | >

Landlords & tenants — advertise your property for rental or your search for accommodation FREE at Newsmedianews