Landlord organisation raises alarm over Renters’ Rights Bill amendments

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 14/01/2025 - 11:31
They believe that social housing is the only acceptable form of renting. As far as they are concerned, private landlords should be made to fall in line with this ideology.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 14/01/2025 - 11:31
And further to Peter Merrick's point, many on the Left think that all private landlords are evil, rich barst**ds who sit on a tropical beach counting their rent and that them losing money is of no importance.

Sadly, many tenants, who are finding life tough now will find it even tougher when persecuted landlords leave the market and the supply of houses to rent reduces. It's lose-lose, which is what one expects from socialist policies.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 15/01/2025 - 10:17
Doesn't make any sense though for any organisation interested in the needs of ALL people renting.

I had a quick look on the Shelter website.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/what_we_do/updates_insights_and_impact/the_renters_rights_bill_explained

it says under "How can the bill be improved.." that "..there is nothing to stop landlords from asking for guarantors - or someone to 'guarantee' the rent. Getting a guarantor is a big challenge for many low-income renters or people who receive housing benefits.'

So it would appear that the reason they might be against guarantors is because low-income renters and people who receive housing benefit can't get them. But that misses the point doesn't it? Low income renters and people who receive housing benefit are not the only people that rent.

from what I can gather as of right now...

A months rent in advance cant be asked for BEFORE the tenancy is entered (I presume this means the tenant has to sign the contract first.)r.

Taken literally does that mean JUST the T needs to sign (not necessarily the LL?), and that I should take a timed photo after T signs contract before I am able to formally ask/demand the first months rent?

If that is the case, then surely can I ask for proof required that this payment has actually been made (and cleared) BEFORE I sign the contract the actual property keys are released?

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 15/01/2025 - 14:49
You can request a maximum of a week's (non-returnable) holding deposit as a sign of commitment from the prospective tenant prior to signing an agreement.
Any required rent can be taken when the agreement is signed. I don't sign the agreement or hand over the agreement or the keys until they have paid all the money required and I have seen it on my banking app.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 15/01/2025 - 10:41
I think the intention here is one of equality, i.e. a tenant who is on a low income or housing benefit should not be disadvantaged in their chances of securing a tenancy by not having a guarantor. It does of course rather miss the point of guarantors, which is to ensure that the rent will be paid if the tenant can't/doesn't pay.

So it's not really going to help those who can't afford to rent or don't have excellent credit scores when renting is fast becoming the preserve of those who can. Furthermore, those who could have obtained a guarantor to secure a tenancy will now also be excluded.

And it's rather rich coming from organisations who told govt 10 years ago that landlords are a scourge on society and that they should get rid of us all!

Until they acknowledge that being a landlord is a legitimate business and that landlords have rights as well as responsibilities, including the right to make a living by providing a service, it's only going to get worse.

Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 15/01/2025 - 15:55
I don't think it has anything to do with equality. I've housed single-mums in the past and they've been good tenants who looked after the property. All my single-mum tenants were in receipt of housing benefits but I insisted that they pay me directly. One of my single mums was being helped out by her sister. She kept the house immaculate.

Suppose I have two prospective tenants for a flat that I normally let out at £1,500 PCM.

Tenant A is a single mum who thinks that she can just about afford the flat and wants it because it is near the schools she wants her child with special educational needs to access. Whether she can afford it is marginal but she has a guarantor available who wants to help her.

Tenant B is a coder in his early 20s, earning £60K PA in the gaming industry who can easily afford the £2,000 PCM flat up the road but wants to rent this one instead because it gives him an extra £500/PCM to spend on booze, holidays in Ibiza and sticking coke up his nose.

Let's suppose I don't encourage these two prospective tenants to get into a private bidding war such that I get for example £1,750 PCM but instead I take tenant A and accept £1,500 PCM on the basis that she has a guarantor.

How is it in any way socially useful, or just, for tenant A to be prevented from using a guarantor?

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 15/01/2025 - 16:26That's pretty much what I was getting at later on.
But I think Shelter are more concerned with the case of Tenant A single mum with guarantor vs Tenant B single mum without guarantor, where having a guarantor determines who gets the tenancy.
In an age where having a guarantor is only going to get more important, those without one will be increasingly likely to be excluded, just because there are enough prospective tenants available that can call on a guarantor to help them out..
And I would take your tenant A over tenant B any day too!

Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 15/01/2025 - 15:43
....but by default the first months rent is not due until after the contract is signed so you wont see that money going into your account until AFTER it is signed and you have handed the keys over....that's my point.

You can only secure a weeks equivalent of rent for a holding deposit until after the contract is signed and only then demand and (hope to) receive the first months rent (or the rest of that months rent minus the holding week)

Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 15/01/2025 - 16:48
throw Tenant C into the mix...

Working couple with 2 kids, both on working 3 year visas aligned to social work contracts coming from Africa/India. Paid up front for their own costs to get here and pay for the 6 months in airbnb until they can rent somewhere longer term. Permanent contracts, as much overtime they like, no recourse to public funds.
Self paying the RIA and deposit but UK resident home owning guarantor not possible. Basically they don't work they don't eat and if they have no job then the working visa becomes null and void, no right to rent etc....

A, B or C?