Quote:
Originally Posted by blacksheep1979 I'm sorry, but its almost some form of credit check - its basically saying if you can't pay the rent yourself then I'm unwilling to take the financial risk of having you as a tennant and I think that is perfectly fair as a house is a big investment. Its totally different to saying no blacks asians etc, its saying no to people who may become a financial burden and unable to pay what they owe leaving the landlord out of pocket and maybe behind on payments with his mortgage.
As to not saying you are receiving benefits to the landlord depending on the contract, wether you specifically lie to him etc about the benefits then you could be in breech of contract - I don't think its the best route to take all in all. Be honest with the landlords and if you can get decent references then you will possibly find some willing to accomodate. |
========================= ===
The main fact here is that DSS payments are probably more guaranteed than others in many ways. However, DSS payments are geared to maximum rentable values as determined by local authorities and to those looking to make profits this is not enough to satisfy their desire. The fact remains in my opinion that "no dss" is blunt discrimination. Sadly I have lost the comments put on site by former readers but one is retained at the head of the article.
Honesty is the best policy but as per the old saying it does not always pay. I am not advocating dishonesty but I am advocating a fair system. And as my article says, if the 919,700 people is receipt of DSS support in 2006 had been refused accommodation on those grounds alone, those people would have been left homeless. And that includes many people on disability-related allowances.
Keith