In her ruling, Judge Victoria Elizabeth Mark said that “rejecting tenancy applications because the applicant is in receipt of housing benefit was unlawfully indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex and disability, contrary to […] the Equality Act 2010”.
The ruling was welcomed by the housing charity Shelter as a “nail in the coffin” of the No DSS rule – an archaic reference to the former Department for Social Security – used by some landlords to describe the vetting of a class of tenants they regard as unsuitable.
Rose Arnall, the Shelter solicitor who fought the case, said: “It finally clarifies that discriminating against people in need of housing benefits is not just morally wrong, it is against the law.”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ngs-agency
Overall I support this ruling as I remember being an unemployed prospective tenant being looked down upon due to my circumstances despite not technically being 'DSS'. I was given the option of paying several months' worth of rent in advance, which I was easily capable of paying with a combination of savings and a teaching grant yet I still walked out of the letting agent as I refused to deal with their snobbery.
On the other hand, I have heard that some landlords aren't judging the person but instead judging the system; as landlords they need the rent to be on time and the government benefits system is notoriously fickle and bureaucratic. Accepting a DSS tenant means accepting the unreliability of the benefits system.
While this is a good ruling by the court, I think it would be better for both parties if benefit payments are given on time so that the core problem isn't there in the first place.
Do you think that the court ruling is justified?