Why is RLA supporting move to make landlords take benefits tenants?

Campaigning and Policy

On the RLA news section John Stewart RLA policy director is quoted as saying landlords whould not reject applicants solely because they are on benefits. Can I ask why not? (see post on news section 6 days ago by Victoria Barker)

Does John Stewart have any idea how much time it takes to evaluate the average inner city housing benefit tenant who does not understand what a guarantor is, does not have any references, often does not even know where the property they are looking for is located and probably has not even bothered to read through the advert. And that is before we even get to English language skills and domestic violence...

Assessing housing benefit tenants and managing them is significantly different from dealing with people who earn their income through work. Earned income versus benefits income is in my experience the single clearest predictor of general behaviour amongst tenants.

Why is RLA not standing up for the right of landlords to chose which group they go for? If what they mean is that some working people need some HB top up to pay their rent then say so. Do banks offer mortages to people on benefits? No. So why should we be compelled to offer them a home?