New partnership wants to know why private landlords won’t rent to councils

Oh dear, they really don’t understand how numbers work, do they?

If a private landlord lets a property to a homeless family, let’s call them Family A, rather than to another family which we’ll call Family B then Family B will be homeless instead of Family A.

The problem is that there are too many people in the U.K. Any mathematician will understand that net migration is the singular cause of homelessness.

From a government website…

𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒, 𝟏.𝟏𝟔 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤, 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬 (𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬). 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐝, 𝟑𝟖,𝟕𝟖𝟒 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐊 𝐛𝐲 𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬.

Remember, that once a migrant has successfully gamed the asylum system, they are free to bring family to the U.K.

The problem is too many people. We have more houses than ever before and a falling birth rate.

If I was to let another property, it would be to somebody of my choosing. It certainly wouldn’t be to anyone that was selected for me by my enemies (Crisis and the Council included).

typical. See things as an issue but without looking at the root case and nothing will be achieved.
Cheaper and quicker response would be to just approach landlords directly and ask them why they don't rent to the 'homeless'. (by this I think they are also including those in temp/emergency accommodation as well as literally living on the streets?) That will ultimately provide them the bottom line reasons why straight from horse's mouth!

But there again, the answers might not suit their agenda.....

"....high deposits and up-front rent payments, mean the private rented sector is almost inaccessible for people facing homelessness....Plus, unaffordable rents, a lack of social housing..."

That about sums it up but NB: a landlord is prohibited by law from taking more than a five week deposit. The only thing a landlord can do to decrease risk within the law is to increase the rent (which also has the effect of increasing the deposit).

Up-front rent payments is a way that some landlords ensure either that the rent is going to get paid, or perhaps because there might be 20 or 30 tenants going for a property because of the shortage and it makes sense to take the tenant that is prepared to pay up front to secure a property. I've never done this but I have no moral objection to it.

Whatever steps you take to ensure that you are going to get paid you have to subject the tenant to affordability checks. Realistically homeless people won't pass these and you are going to be reliant on the council to pay the rent. But if you take on a council tenant and the tenant's circumstances change such that it transpires they are not eligible for housing benefit then the council can get the money back off you, the landlord. Consequently council tenants generally are relatively high risk.

I have a property that becomes vacant. My rental agent has a waiting list. These people are vetted and credit checked. They often want to move to be closer to work, family, schools, etc. They will pay the market rent. Alternatively the council wants me to house someone from their list. Sadly due to data protection they cannot share any details of the potential tenant. I can of course carry out my own checks and vetting, but this costs me time and money. If I do rent to them then housing benefits wont pay the full rent so I have to either take less or chase them for the balance every month. While I am doing the checks another department of the council hits me with double council tax as i am leaving my property empty. So who am I going to take? Answer on a post card please.

There are many things that the government (or government supported agencies such as TDS and Crisis and Shelter, etc) could do to improve access to the private rented sector, but they are not willing to do, and instead they "tinker" at the edges and achieve little if any positive outcomes.

Rent deposit schemes, rent in advance schemes, "renting ready" training courses, are not new, these and a myriad of other initiatives have been around for decades, and have little effect on reducing homelessness.

There is a housing shortage, and this is particularly acute for renters. Those needing or wishing to rent a home face the barriers of lack of supply and a high demand, so why would any private landlord choose to let their property to a homeless person or family, or those in receipt of benefits (Local Housing Allowance) who are usually considered to be a much higher risk?

The answer perhaps lies with reducing the risk so that it is lower risk than letting to another household. This can be done by a combination of initiatives, such as those proposed, BUT I think the most important thing that the government, local government, Shelter, Crisis, Generation Rent, et al could do would be to put their money where their mouth is and actually act as a GUARANTOR (rent AND damage guarantor) for all the households that they want the private landlords to house for them.

If government and Shelter etc really do want to house the homeless, then they need to either build or lease properties themselves and then house the people in those properties, OR act as a legally liable guarantor so that private landlords have the assurances they need to take on that risk.

Reply to the comment left by Steve A at 02/09/2024 - 10:48
You are of course correct but the picture is actually worse than the one that you paint. You are faced with extra work initially but the work is ongoing if you are going to have to regularly check that the tenants are still eligible for housing benefit. And as a landlord you have no powers to check. Your powers don't extend to much more than a landlord's inspection having given 24 hours notice.

The only way that you can take a council tenant and eliminate your risk of the council clawing back the money from you if it turns out that the tenant wasn't eligible for benefits is if you insist that the tenant pays you directly. Clearly, homeless people won't pass the affordability checks.

If councils want to enter into contracts with private firms to house homeless people in much the same way that the government enters into contracts with private firms to house asylum seekers councils can already do this.

Building upon already well made points above; the Councils have not helped the situation by insisting tenants whom have been given notice, remain in the properties for the bailiffs. The tenants are then most unlikely to pass any decent referencing check for a PRS property.

It really isn't a difficult puzzle to work out. The market place is being maipulated beyond reasonable function. Intended and unintended consequeces have caused a disaster scenario.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 02/09/2024 - 10:39
Last month I had a benefit funded tenant move out and into an housing association property. He didn't hand back the keys or tell me he was leaving until he'd moved to his new place and settled in. The council then back dated his rent claim for his new place and reclaimed his last month's rent they had paid to me. I was also hit by empty property council tax since he couldn't receive the benefit for two properties! Personally I find councils to consider any relationship with private landlords to be adversarial. They love screwing over a private landlord when they can.

Why doesn’t Francesca Albanese have a go at the mortgage lenders ? They won’t grant mortgages to low income or homeless people either. And they also require an unaffordable deposit.

Reply to the comment left by Steve A at 02/09/2024 - 10:57
The worst tenant that I ever had was actually somebody who was an employee of the local council. She was as you say constantly trying to screw me....far worse than the [probably illegal] immigrant who was my best ever tenant.