in the 60s there were signs in boarding houses

Which clearly stated "no coloureds" i believe we all understand how wrong that was,is the same mistake being made again by putting on accomadation ads "no dhss" isnt this a form of discrimination against the unemployed? or are they saying no dhss because there are problems getting the rent from the government,like forms forms forms,and if in doubt more forms,and if that is the case isnt it time they did something about making it easier,for as far as i can see dss money is as good as anyone elses.

We`ve had this conversation before on the Yourmail site. I gave you a list of landlords that accept dhss tenants then. There are loads of letting agencies and landlords out there that do accept dhss, mostly in the cheaper bracket. The more upmarket properties wont have them because the rents are too high. If housing benefit is only paid at a certain rate, where is the rest of the rent going to come from? At the moment there are a number of people out of work, through no fault of their own and are claiming benefits, but there are also a hell of a lot that use benefits as a lifestyle. I wouldn`t want to let my house to someone who was too lazy to work and therefore probably too lazy to look after my property.
I don`t think you can compare racial discrimination with wanting good, honest tenants.

I agree with you Tiger. I don't think it's the same at all. It's down to simple economics.

Im not interested in private renting,and i do know that if the rent is in a higher bracket than dss pays,you can if you want pay the extra yourself,but the old stigma of being on social pops its ugly head because of the old attitude that if you are on social your automaticaly lazy,its ok to say some are on it through no faults of their own,but no ones going to go to the trouble of finding out if you have been a good worker,so no fault of your own,or lazy you are all tarred with the same brush,and i have seen in my time people that work that dont care for their rented property,with overgrown gardens,filthy nets and windows,dog poo all over the garden,and take better care and keep their cars cleaner than their home,im dss and quite a few others found the same thing in council renting,you would be given a dump and if after you have put your heart and soul into it and well kept gardens,when you wanted a move they would give you another dump because they knew you would turn it around.

If I owned a property and I wanted to let it, I would certainly never choose tenants on benefits. That is not because I think they are all a waste of space and that they don't care, but because it is so hard to get the rent from the council within a reasonable timescale and in these days of fairly high rents three months rent arrears adds up to a fairly large sum. Another thing to bear in mind is that with the new laws the council can no longer pay the rent direct to the landlord but only to the tenant so a situation can arise that if the landlord allows the tenant to stay for two or three months waiting for the council to pay up and the cheque arrives and it is for, say, £900 or £1400 that is a hell of a temptation if the kids need shoes or the electric bill is higher this quarter to spend it and worry about the landlord later. And, of course, there are those who don't give a nack for the landlord, knowing it is going to take a few months to get the tenant out and then they can get somewhere else and do a moonlight flit owing several thousand pounds. No, I don't think it is discrimination. It is the landlord's property and if he doesn't want to let his house to someone why should we want to force him to and that includes ethnic minorities as well as DSS.

Does this new law effect the council, as far as im aware they are a landlord,are you saying that every council tenent now gets the rent paid directly to them,and as far as temptation is concerned it could only be a person on dss "its just too much for them"a fellow with a good income could not even think of doing a moonlight flit,and while on the subject of landlords,what about the landlords that cheat honest people out of bond money,and the ones that wont even allow you to put up a picture,and the ones that come round when you are out looking for damage,wont let you decorate ect,however you try to gloss over what you say,it sounds to me like you are predjudice against people on dss,im sick of hearing the same lame excuses,like "oh i know there are some people claiming dss through no fault of their own"but still making out the biggest part of them are nothing more than lazy scroungers,that would steal the eye out of your head and have the cheek to wink it at you,i say this,people on dss are entitled to a decent home,and ill say landlords are right to do a credit check with "EVERYONE" but to simply refuse you because your on dss and rhumours is wrong,there are dishonest people from the highest positions in life to the lowest,incuding councils,lords,mps,and on and on.

Just out of curiosity,i wonder how many people on here are in reciept of benefits,and are as honest as the day is long,who have paid their rent for donkeys years,but due to circumstance found themselves looking for accomadation and each decent home they went after were told "no dss"try the poorer end of the market.

Actually, Steve, you were the one who set the parameters of this thread. It was you who started bleating on about the poor people on DSS not being allowed to rent decent housing because the landlords were big bad ogres who should have been forced to rent to anybody who needed a place to live in. Well, maybe they were not your words but that is how it comes over. As far as the law about paying the rent direct to the customer is concerned, different rules apply to social housing organisations such as councils and housing associations. And you seem to think that I have never been on Housing Benefit or DSS or such. Well, my health deteriorated to such an extent when I was 60 that I had to retire from working and I went onto DSS and Housing Benefits over ten years ago so I do know what I am talking about. I also have very close friend who lets property and he will not accept DSS claimants for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier posting. As far as moonlight flits are concerned, yes, people who are working and paying their own rents do moonlight flits but any landlord who gets caught out in this regard deserves to, as he should have taken a deposit and an advance rental. Finally, anybody renting a property who doesn't check what the landlord will and will not allow them to do with regard to hanging pictures or decorating is obviously a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

I agree with everything Alan says. Ofcourse there are dodgy landlords, we all know that, just as there are good and bad tenants. The ones that don`t let you decorate or hang pictures are very few and far between.
You have to look at things from another point of view though aswell. How would you feel if you had worked hard all your life for a low wage, bought your house, struggled to pay the mortgage and then heard that some lazy out of work layabout was getting a much better house in a much better location and was having the rent paid for them?
You`ve got to get this idea that all landlords are against you out of your head. Get off your backside and try some of them.

I have no need to get off my backside and look for private housing,my plans are laid and made,but like i say if it was any of your sons,daughters,or grandchildren,that were on dole with a much better house in a much better location,would you be happy for them and give anyone that called them "lazy out of work layabouts" a good old piece of your mind or agree with them.(ps note i said "if")

If my children or grandchildren needed a house I would advise them to go with what they can afford. If you want the best, you have to work for it.

And if wanting the best includes no job,on benefits, getting rent paid by dss,would that be because they are lazy out of work layabouts,scroungers that your taxes pay for because thats the sort of thing people on dss hear on a daily basis and they are not going to become homeowners no matter how they struggle.

Good God, Steve, what the hell are you on about? You now seem to be suggesting that we should buy houses for people on benefits. I have heard some damn fool ideas in my time but I think you have just surprised me. I don't think that you think your arguments through before you submit them to this forum because if you did you wouldn't trot out such utter horse manure. Mind you, if you bought a house for some of the lazy, good for nothing, 3rd generation benefit scroungers who exist out there, at least they would only be destroying their own property.

I cannot understand Fozzeduks point, if you dont have money for a deposit and the means to pay a mortgage you can't in our present society become a home owner. The people without the means either live in council or private rented accomadation. This was always the way and I cant see it changing. As has been said previously, you have to work for it unless you win the the lotto. Best of luck.

Then perhaps you should take off your blinkers and put your reading glasses back on,for anyone with half an eye should be able to understand that my point being made was that people on dss no matter how much they scrimp and save and struggle will become a homeowner,or even suggested they shoud be,we are talking about landlords that turn you away because you are in reciept of benefits,as well you all know and putting on their ads "no dss"of course there will be landlords that have had a bad experiences with people on dss,just as there will be with people who are in work as well,and ill be the first to admit that there are some shady people on benefits,but there are shady people in every workplace,not everyone is as honest as alan im afraid,but how on earth are the millions of people who are on dss through no fault of their own supposed to live life in the best way that they can,who are looking for work,and want the best for their families be expected to feel any confidence when there are people making comments like the one alan just made,so you left work at sixty then i say you were lucky,and does not give you the god given right to put people on dss down,just because you were fortunate enough to be in work,and you may say your comments were directed to the lazy people on dss but its everyone on dss who feel tarred with your same brush and made to feel like a bum.

There was nothing fortunate about me being in work, Steve. It was something we did when I was younger because being on the dole was practically impossible then. I was in work also because I could not have held my head up in my younger days if I brought my family up on benefits.. I enjoyed a lifestyle which could never be maintained on DSS. As for saying that I was lucky to retire at 60, please read my comment again and you will see that that was not a choice, since I contracted a serious lung disease called emphysema from smoking which has now rendered me practically housebound and on oxygen 24 hours a day. Hardly a lifestyle of choice. Might I reiterate a remark I have made to you amongst others both here and on Yourmail when it was in existence and that is to read what others write carefully before you jump in with both size 10 clogs and respond making you look foolish.

Well i dont feel foolish,do you ?

There are many different people on benefits for many different reasons. We seem to be talking about recent unemployed and long term unemployed. Correct me if I`m wrong.
The recent unemployed, should know their own situation. If they`re already paying rent on a house then housing benefit will take over and the rent will be paid until another job can be found. If they`re looking for their first home then surely it wouldn`t hurt to wait until they`re back in enployment.
The long term unemployed, and by this I mean the one`s that make it a lifestyle, should all be put on the seediest housing estates there are. They`d soon find a job then I`m sure.

The long term unemployed put on the seediest housing estates there are? sounds like shove them into a ghetto,and if a job opportunity came up who do you think the employer would pick?a person from a decent housing estate,or the person from the seedy dump your suggesting,i cannot believe in these modern times how people no matter how hard they worked to become a homeowner,even those that bought cheap council houses suddenly think they are above the same class of people and start looking down on them because your a homeowner,i think you have all made your oppinions of people on dss quite clear,and its pretty obvious we will never aggree so we may as well drop it now,you all clearly let me know that your thinking on the lines that you cannot stand the thought of anyone getting something for nothing mentality.

And once again you have either not read or not understood what was written. I clearly stated long term unemployed that use it as a lifestyle.
Don`t you dare accuse me of thinking I`m above anyone just because of where they live. You don`t know me well enough to make judgements like that. What I do know is that I have more self respect than to allow myself to be kept by the tax payers of this country. And yes I do resent every penny that goes to those who can work but refuse to.

I couldn't agree more, Tiger. I think Steve's big problem is a gigantic chip on his shoulder that makes him think every time someone disagrees with him they are making a personal assault on him. And as for you, Steve, may I suggest you try to come up with reasoned argument in future, because you are seriously in danger of trying to turn this forum into the same God awful dumping ground for rubbish as the latter days of YourMail whose descent into obscurity you had a strong hand in. I hope I am not fuelling your paranoia here, but I always tell it as I see it.

You see it well Alan.

There is no difference in a man being white or black or a lady for that matter when it comes to financial matters. But someone with financial problems... come on do the maths, oh no maybe that’s why...

fozzeduk wrote:

no matter how hard they worked to become a homeowner,

Slightly off topic, but what's so good about being a homeowner? It's the biggest drag on labour mobility that there is.

If you don't see the virtues and attraction of owning your own home and putting down roots in the area you choose to live in, then there's little point trying to explain it really.

I can see Trevs point actually. You struggle for donkeys years to pay a mortgage that is much higher than you`d pay rent. Then you have buildings insurance to pay, just in case. Unless you stay in the same house, you`re probably paying a mortgage almost up to retirement. Then, at times like this, you`re worried sick about losing your job because that could mean you lose your house too.
You can put roots down anywhere, even in a council house. And you`ve got no worries about repairs or paying the rent if you become jobless. There are pro`s and con`s to both.