No job + no guarantor = No Home and Crisis wonder why?

hi Paul, the problem we have is ' public perception'.
i'm convinced the powers that be are well aware of both - what to do and how to do.
but have an innate fear of the publics perception of LLs.
this should be our target. the only way to change this is by letting it be known that the cost of bad tenants and bad legislation leads to higher rents which pays for their mistakes, the damages, loss of rents, the licenses, the inspection, etc. etc.

how else do we pay for these costs ???

50% of the country pays rent. let them be informed of what truly goes on - on their behalf.

education is a dangerous this - but to whom ? that's up to the educator and what is being taught.

never give more than 6 months tenancy!

I know that a number of my colleagues have started issuing Section 21 notices (with a date at the end of the initial term) as part of the check in process. They get these signed by the tenant to confirm receipt and then feel they have this greater "insurance" should they need to evict the tenant at any point.
Whilst this could be seen as underhand, the people I speak to feel that it is the only way of swinging the current legislation back in their favour, especially as they would only intend to enforce should the tenants force a reason for doing so.

The rent should be payed directly to the landlord. In Ireland there are tenants who use rent allowance as pocket money and change appartment every 3 months. When the supply and demand changes here in a few years time no landlord will accept council tenants due to the abuse currently taking place.

Paddy, the chances of changing the systems of Universal Credit are ZERO. However, when Housing Associations and councils are in the same boat as Private Landlords I think we have a far better chance of working with them to criminalise none payment of rent and to improve the time it takes to re-gain possession of properties. In some American states the local Sheriff will arrest tenants for none payment of rent, anti social behaviour or damage to a property and even help tenants to get them out of their properties. Watch a film called "The Pursuit of Happyness" - that's how things should be here in the UK. We need to undo the "Welfare State" we have become.

I've learnt that now Terry. I won't be falling for that again. Still wouldn't solve the problem of getting the tenant out at the end though.

That's correct Mark. No guarantor was appointed. Big mistake. But I think the figure of 98.5% of landlords saying no more dss has just gone up to 98.6%.

Interestingly, the more the Charities shout about this problem, the more landlords make the decision to follow the advice and strategies of their peers. Whilst demand is so high for accommodation from hard working people (e.g. Eastern European families migrating to the UK) why would anybody CHOOSE to rent to people who believe the state owes them a living? Landlords are being asked to provide accommodation but do not feel that the law protects them sufficiently. There can only be three outcomes - 1) change the law or 2) deal with mass homelessness and the associated issues such as crime or 3) incentivise the development of more affordable accommodation. I thinkwe will witness all three of these outcomes within the next two years.

Paddy it will not take " a few years" in less than 2 years these tenants will be homeless because private landlords, local authorities and RSLs will all walk away from them - because none of us can survive without income and if none of us survive there will be NO HOMES FOR ANYONE!!
As as aside I assume that those landlords who are issuing S21 at check in are protecting the deposit and giving the tenants the correct information, with proof that they have done so, before they issue the S21. Also that they have evidence that the AST was signed before the S21 was issued. If they have not done both of these things the S21 is not worth the paper that is it written on.
Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets

Mark, I think this is not a situation of insufficient accommodation; there is plenty of rental accommodation available.

It is just LL do not wish to take a risk on the riskier tenant type because of the problems of eviction.

It doesn't matter that much if you have a 'normal' tenant on whom you have an RGI policy as that will cover rent and eviction.

But for possible tenants that a LL cannot source RGI for , the LL won't bother taking the person on due to the risks of a tenant without a RGI policy on them.

Clearly the most important law to change is eviction following say 2 months of rent arrears which is 1 month and 1 day if rent paid in advance monthly.

As you advise in certain US states the police initiate such removal action as is necessary.

If we had similar circumstances in the UK there would be a rapid change in LL taking on LHA tenants.

Once the useless county court system as far as rent arrears and eviction are concerned is dispensed with then LL will take on LHA tenants.

The best incentive to motivate a tenant to pay rent and LHA/UC given to the tenant for the purposes of paying the rent; is if you don't pay all up to date rent; then after 2 months rent arrears which will be 1 month and 1 day then you and all your goods and possessions and any family will be thrown out onto the street by the police, if their LL so desires it.

There is not such possibility at the moment, which is why tenants behave with impunity.

They know the system is on their side and that it will take months for a LL to get rid of them.

You would be removed by police from a B & B if you did not pay the charges.

I see no reason that an AST should be any different from a contract to have rooms at a B & B.

Nobody seems to have picked up on the massive loss of tax revenue to the govt caused by tenants not paying rent.
As well as rent losses there are all the other losses that LL presently write off against tax, perfectly legitimately.
I believe a figure of 2.1 billion pounds per year of losses to the PRS have been estimated.
These losses offset against a LL income are a massive tax loss to the UK economy.
Govt has been making much play about the large corporates avoiding tax legitimately, though maybe immorally, but has said NOTHING about the losses it is suffering from wrongun tenants.
LL if they can absorb the losses that occur, but offset such losses against any income from rent.
Govt could if they were so minded to rapidly increase the tax take from LL, would just change the eviction laws.
95% of evictions are for rental arrears.
It could be possibly extrapolated that the govt tax take from LL might go up 95%!, not a small figure!?
Govt is supposed to be on the side of SME businesses as they suggest these are the economic drivers of the economy.
So surely assisting LL to generate income and profit is in the govt's interest
We are SME's, are't we!?
Allowing LL not make losses from rent arrears will allow LL to reinvest and improve property which would uplift standards across the industry.
I just don't understand why more of this knock-on effect on the economy and taxes is not being highlighted by the govt.
Perhaps I am being a bit thick here; or is it because the issues of rent arrears might show up the state of the country for what it actually is.
To have vast swathes of the population unable to service their basic living requirements wouldn't make the govt look too good!
At the moment the issue of rent arrears and subsequent LL losses can be kept quiet as 'only' 1 1/2 million LL in the PRS are affected.
Govt knows that keeping things quiet will not affect their vote; but making it easy for a LL to evict would, especially as I believe currently 2.5 million tenants are in rental arrears.
This why I think we will see NO action by govt to assist the PRS in timely eviction for rental arrears.