Has anyone rented a property to a DSS tenant? I appreciate the issues potentially associated, but ive shown a couple round a house today with good references, never missed a payment etc and look ideal. I know people will have their horror stories, but that's not what Im after..... Is there anything I need to be aware of? Who pays the rent, tenant or direct? What happens if they don't pay - i.e same eviction terms as a non DSS tenant? Any thing I need to know would be good. Ta
No from your potential tenants. For example, the parents of one guarantee to cover any shortfall in rent, repair costs etc that aren't covered by the bond. You can bet your house that should the housing benefit be paid direct to the tenant and thing do go wrong you'll be left out of pocket. Fair enough from what you've said it's highly unlikely but stranger things have happened.
More reliable in some ways than other tenants as the payments come directly from the council you can get the tenants to request that the council pay you directly.
That used to be the case but isn't anymore... The payment is made to the tenant and cannot be paid to the landlord
I used to have my own business as a letting agent, and it was always a no-no to let to DSS tenants (less hassle in theory to the agent, and I was only let down once, for 1 month, by a visiting RS Prof from Iran). I have just bought a house to let, and the insurance company (buildings only, for a buy to let property) have stipulated NO DSS. I have some sympathy for such tenants, but you should always consider number 1.
At one point a couple of years ago I thought about buying to let. I then met an old friend who did the same and I asked him of the pitfalls ie tennants not paying rent. He said it was murder but after solicitors letters most paid up. One set of tennants flatly refused to pay anything. My mate then had to employ the services of a local hardman to sort it out. The hardman got a squad together entered the house when the occupants were out and proceeded to empty all their furniture into the garden. The locks were changed and when the people returned they were then told to get rid of their stuff the next day or it would all be torched. Funnily enough it was removed. The hardman took £1000 for his help. When I heard this I had second thoughts about it. Too much hassel.
Without criticising anyone's personal decision as to who to let to, the fact that insurance companies are able to stipulate that is disgusting and a prime example of the system ******* over the most vulnerable in society
I haven't but my mate has and he says 'never again'. He has a few rental properties and while he does say that he has had problems with non DSS tenants he says these are the minority and very rare whereas problems with DSS tenants are very likely. The changes to the way housing benefit is paid has changed too so no guaranteed money anymore.
It’s a self fulfilling prophecy – if DSS tenants hadn’t earned such a bad reputation then there wouldn’t be so many landlords unwilling to house them, the insurance companies wouldn’t put a clause like this in its policy and we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion on here. I genuinely feel sorry for the decent DSS tenants having to be tarred with the same brush as the low-life scum who give them such a bad name but unfortunately when you make such a big investment into a house you really do everything you can to protect it.
My landlord gets them on DSS to create a account with Credit Union, think the money from social goes into their and then it goes straight to landlord.
