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

Reply to the comment left by Simon F at 02/09/2024 - 15:11
Indeed it is a good answer. What your article says is:

"Given that such tenants are 30x more likely to default, we argue for mandatory rent guarantee insurance paid for the duration of the tenancy by the local authority or introducing agency."

The author of the article at the head of this post [The executive director of policy and social change at Crisis, Francesca Albanese] says: “Securing new ways to access private rental properties for our members is invaluable and why we’re so pleased to be partnering with the TDS Group to begin this unique initiative. We look forward to working with them to open more doors into secure rental properties and ultimately, helping more people out of homelessness for good.”

If you have a group of tenants who are 30X more likely to default then nobody can blame landlords for not taking them. Crisis could pay the mandatory rent guarantee insurance proposed in your article. But my guess is that "Mandatory Rent Guarantee Insurance" would be very expensive indeed for a group of tenants that are 30X more likely to default. I think the actuaries working with the insurance companies might just go "...er, no homeless people thank you."

So maybe Crisis should just pay the rent for these homeless people who are 30X more likely to default as it seems highly unlikely that any competent insurance company would touch these tenancies.

I attempted to help homeless people get into accommodation using a HMO and 2 B2L... Local authorities hounded me not to do it as I am not a registered provider.... Plus these people do cause more issues with property due to lifestyle and lower levels of responsibility to care for property due to their issues which either caused or were created by homelessness.
Now I have moved away form homeless as under HHRSH I am at risk from over zealous council PRS hunting me down rather than trying to work with me to assist them to maintain their tenancies.
For me.... Unless the law changes to stop hunting landlords homelessness will not improve.

A lot of immigrants make better tenants than locals. As a business model, the only thing that makes sense is to rent to the person who you believe will be the best tenant available. This is, sadly, not likely to be someone who, whether or not though their own fault, did not manage to stayed homed. Such people very often need support that a private landlord simply can't offer alongside all their other obligations.

A work colleague ofi mine rents to a small local homelessness charity. They are his tenant but they are free to sublet to a client of their choosing. The tenancy is a full repair and maintenance one, like a commercial tenancy, fixed for three years, after which either party can walk away. The charity is responsible for returning the property to him after three years in a condition that an independent inspector confirms is the same as three years ago, less fair wear an tear - as defined in advance, not by the charity picking and choosing.
He gets a fixed rent every month from the charity, not the subletting tenant, and those payments are insured, though they do not go up year on year, I believe, and the tent is about 5%-10% less than the market averagek. If the property is empty, that's the charity's problem: he still gets paid.
So, reliable insured rent, no maintenance or repair costs, no tenant-finding or tenant-management duties, and full restoration of condition at the end of tenancy. His principal variable and risk is interest rates, but that can be fixed too. Would you take this deal?

I think it easy to confuse PRS housing as a solution to low income housing. They are not always the same. I want tenants who can afford to heat and care for my homes properly and dry their clothes properly without causing damp. Only a proportion of private rentals will be suitable or affordable for the lower end of the sector.

"I don't understand why more people aren't placing bets on Everton to win the Premier League! The odds we're offering are only a bit worse than those for Man City. I know they're bottom of the league but it's so unfair!

"What we need is a group of highly-paid professionals to work with bookies to ensure that more people bet on Everton."

Reply to the comment left by AnthonyJames at 02/09/2024 - 21:54
Sounds like another con targeting amateur mug landlords. Avoid at all costs.

What do the neighbours think about it?

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 03/09/2024 - 05:52
Anthony, might be OK for your friend but landlords rarely think of the neighbours. I do and hence with my remaining tenants I have hardly any issues. However next to one of my properties the landlord (a solicitor !) put in a scumbag and his 3 children stay there at weekends and school holidays (a 1 bed house). The kids run wild and have damaged my tenants car. I had to contact the solicitor to remind her of her obligations, she has now given the scumbag the boot and will be selling the property. The problem with a lot of landlords is they just think of the ££££ signs and not the consequences of their actions.

Reply to the comment left by AnthonyJames at 02/09/2024 - 21:54
I would have an open mind about this. For me it would depend upon the charity, the robustness of the contract with the charity, whether my lender would permit it, whether my insurer would insure it and what the insurance costs are. At the moment though I don’t need to accept a 5-10% drop in rent.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 02/09/2024 - 11:11
Hi. "Beaver"

Would you be kind enough to elaborate more on your experience with your ex rouge tentant who worked for the council? I'm quite interested in your story because I've had many many problems with the council and and I absolutely despise them. They lie and cheat all day long. Even in court they lie.