Discrimination against beneficiaries denied

Press, 9 October 1987, Page 3

Discrimination against beneficiaries denied

Christchurch landlords are not discriminating against beneficiaries as is the case among their Auckland counterparts, it has been claimed. Auckland landlords recently followed Christchurch private property owners in calling for a bad tenant list to be run by the Housing Corporation — but in doing so cited beneficiaries as the main culprits in their war against the "never do well” tenants. Although Mr Tony Ward, vice-president of the Canterbury Property Investors’ Association, said beneficiaries caused landlords some problems,

they were not being refused accommodation in Christchurch. He believed the clampdown on beneficiaries was a problem "endemic to Auckland.” An Auckland landlord’s support group spokesman, Mr Don Stockman, said many beneficiaries skipped from property to property leaving a trail of debt. He wanted to see the corporation’s Tenancy Bond Division establish a register of bad tenants. The division in Christchurch recently rejected the same call from the association because it con-

sidered holding such a list would conflict with its impartial role in the housing market. Both the Social Welfare Department and the Christchurch City Council’s community services department asserted beneficiaries were not being discriminated against by city landlords. However, Mr Ward said landlords would appreciate more co-operation from the Social Welfare Department in tracking beneficiaries who disappeared owing money. The department insisted on maintaining confidentiality of clients and refusing to assist a party in finding debtors. According to Mr Cliff Money, assistant director of benefits and pensions, it had no desire to become a central debt collection agency for all types of creditors. Landlords would also like to see a system

whereby beneficiaries’ payments could be paid directly to landlords. The department also refused to accommodate this request. The Rev. David Morrell, of the City Mission, also said it was not prepared to pay beneficiaries’ rents for them because it would then have to employ more staff. It was up to the beneficiary, or low-income earner, to arrange his or her own agent to ensure rent payments were made. Beneficiaries were, in some cases, the most regular rent payers, said Mr Ward. A clampdown on renting property to beneficiaries would result only when accommodation availability became tight and rents increased — as in Auckland. That would mean landlords could become selective about who they let houses out to.