How utterly thoughtless of me, I haven’t thrown together a DSS/DWP tenant related blog post in a while. I know how well they go down around ‘ere, like a smooth shot of Bourbon cum.
*mutters* I’ve probably been slack because I’ve been preoccupied with trying to evict employed private tenants that fell into arrears and blogging about that sack-of-shit nightmare. Oh, the horrific irony.
In any case, it always feels like Christmas when I publish one of these posts because everyone seems strangely happier and more enthusiastic to get involved. I remember reading the results of a shady survey that implied drivers are more likely to give-way during the Christmas period compared to any other time of year because they’re in that festive jolly mindset. That’s exactly the kind of affect I’m talking about.
I’ve probably covered enough ground on the subject of DSS tenants, if not too much. However, the issue still manages to pull in the crowd and rank as the most active section on this website, so I may as well continue to fuel the fire. Power to the people.
In one corner, you have DSS tenants arguing that they’re not all manufactured off the same production line, so landlords should stop discriminating against them and treat them on individual merit. In the other corner, the landlords are saying, “come on, you’re high-risk, which makes you mostly the same… and you smell funny”
The debate has been battered to pieces for centuries now, and I imagine it will continue long past my checkout date.
Personally, I’m still continuing my crusade of refusing to deal with DSS tenants because I’ve had more bad experiences than good. That’s fair enough, right? But the reality is, any type of tenant can be problematic, whether they’re in receivership of housing benefits or not *mutters* as my recent experience highlights.
However, for example, dealing with DSS tenants in arrears is much more infuriating and difficult to digest compared to when private tenants are in arrears. Firstly, the council continue to temporarily sign the cheques when their tenants are in arrears, and they advice them to stay in the property by the grit of their teeth, to the bitter end, because as soon as they vacate the property, the council will have to rehouse them. I refuse to support a legislation like that.
Secondly, it’s the moral issue, you see.
I know, how delusional. I’m actually leveraging morals. I’d accept sex as rent payment.
The issue is, DSS tenants actually receive an allowance from the Government, bankrolled by tax payers, to either partially or entirely pay for their accommodation. They didn’t earn the money, they were given the money for the sole purpose of paying their rent, among other living expenses. So when they fall into arrears, you’re left wondering where the fuck the money went. It’s bloody infuriating, so I’d rather keep my blood pressure level at a happy medium by avoiding it at all costs.
But that’s just two examples of why I don’t accept DSS tenants. My thoughts on the matter go much deeper, and I’ve discussed many of my frightful insights in the DSS/DWP tenants archive. Knock yourself out.
I’ve actually got massively side-tracked, because the issue I want to open up and discuss is colonisation. Last week I received an anti-DSS tenant email from a random geezer that is currently living in an area with a high density DSS population. He discusses his personal experience of the affects of them colonising in his hood…
I’m a none scrounging 40 + an hour working man who is a private tenant. My girlfriend also works full-time. We’re soon to become homeowners – thank FUCK
DSS does not stop at the landlord’s property they wreck – it can bring a whole street down to a cider-drinking drug den in no time. My landlady only took working people, I am one of them, and now because DSS tenants have moved in left right and centre, and because they drink and inject drugs all night can sleep all day, the net effect on the area is that we’re among the last working tenants to leave.
DSS tenants don’t just bring down a landlord, they bring down every adjoining landlord on a street. I’ve set up my landlord for this- sent a long Land Registry report, photos etc – why? Because she’s been damned good to me over the years and I just know once we’re gone, any working people will not be able to move in or survive here – hence the price will drop, or worse still, DSS people will move in
To my mind, DSS are like cancer to a lovely landlady; they run down a whole area. Any landlord either directly involved with DSS, or in my experience, even renting a terrace next to landlords who DO pander to DSS, has to price that into his business plan i.e. be prepared to take a substantial loss. My heart goes out to the decent landlords and tenants in this country who just want to get on with it and work- my landlord doesn’t deserve this, I don’t deserve this. The sickest thing is my tax is bankrolling these creatures drug taking.
I’ll finish with an adaptation of the old not all Muslims are terrorist line – not DSS are drug addicts, but most drug addicts are DSS.
I haven’t officially responded to the chap who sent me the email, but hopefully he will read this and accept this is a response and a courteous appreciation for sharing his situation.
I mostly agree with him, in the sense that if DSS tenants are closely condensed onto the same street, the street will most likely start to become undesirable to working tenants and consequently lose value. I have no doubt in my mind that it happens all over the country. I’m not saying that every street with a high DSS density is riddled with crime and drugs, I’m just saying that it will have an affect on value because to the outside world it’s an undesirable situation.
The point is, it’s one of a hundred variables landlords should be aware of and take into consideration. An issue like this can potentially seriously damage profits, so it’s not to be taken lightly! Do your neighborhood research.
Has anyone actually experienced this affect? Has anyone felt a direct financial impact because of a high DSS population in or around a property you own? Estate/Letting agents probably see this affect in full-swing all the time…