You take the risk and I will take the tenant!

Excellent, David!
Yes, the authorities are very blasé about the risk we may face. Shelter also tells us it is no greater risk to take tenants on benefits. But they are all curiously reticent when asked to take on this non-existent risk themselves. Strange.

I think it a valid request although rent and damage 'without limit' would appear unreasonable. Even under normal guarantor agreement there would be a limit to the claim that could be made , the rent arrears ( if any) and the damages that could be proved via a correct start and ending inventory.
However if you are asking for the local authority to take all the risk and you take all the profit then I very much doubt any one would take you up on this offer. If you don't want to accept their tenants , just don't accept them rather than make unreasonable offers then try and look like you are being philanthropic

We know that the vessels that make the most noise, - Shelter, whom with their £ 70 Million / year budget could do something constructive for a change to actually help the homeless to find accommodation, instead of bringing legal cases against landlords who for good reason will 'not take the risk'

All you'll find on Shelters web site is referring tenants to the Local Authority, who despite approaching landlords, seeking accommodation for their worse tenants ( usually evicted from their last property ) will not put their money on the line either.
Most L.A's will do is offer ' Paper Deposit bonds ' that are worthless, as they challenge and dispute every claim made, let alone stand as unlimited guarantor.

We do hear of Councils is various parts of the country under such dire pressure that they offer financial incentives for landlords to give a tenancy to alleviate their burgeoning Temporary housing crisis ( which is set to get worse ) I think it was a North London council less than a year ago offering landlords £13 k.

Still, even with a financial incentive, an Unlimited Guarantor should be sought, especially in the current Possession climate, and even more so if/when Sec 21 get abolished.

Reply to the comment left by at 30/10/2020 - 17:20
You write: "...although rent and damage 'without limit' would appear unreasonable." I disagree. It is not unreasonable and there is no reason not to take a unlimited guarantee. It provides good security. If the tenant fails to pay the rent but refuses to leave then it could take months or even years now to get vacant possession. The worst payers also tend to cause the most damage, either deliberately or through bad habits. There are countless tales of landlords being left with damage exceeding a year's rent.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 30/10/2020 - 17:45
By your own admission then there is a limit- the actual arrears and the evidenced damage. An unlimited request is unreasonable.
I am saying that if this landlord doesn't want the local authorities tenants then don't take them, its as simple as that.
I am fed up of seeing landlords bleating that the risk hasn't paid off, sometimes it doesn't pay off- property investment is a risk. If you don't want to take the risk then sell up , take your gain or loss and get out of the market.

Reply to the comment left by at 30/10/2020 - 17:55
I disagree.
There is nothing wrong with giving your terms and conditions to local authorities. It gives them a chance to think about it and also if done by many landlords all over the country, it will raise consciousness about what is going on and how the risks have multiplied courtesy of Government interference.

If they are faced with a brick wall built by landlords to protect our interests, they might well have to begin acting as guarantor. It could be cheaper than the burgeoning costs from having to use much more expensive B & Bs.

This in turn could lead to more empathy - once local authorities face the repercussions of having more rogue tenants on their books - and some pro-landlord policies in the future.

Reply to the comment left by at 30/10/2020 - 17:20
I think you miss the point. I do not take homeless tenants as I have to take the risk on rent and damages WITHOUT LIMIT. Long experience has taught me that these tenants are very risky, far more so than working tenants, often deliberately damaging property in addition to not paying rent (which under government rules is now voluntary). If councils wish me to house their homeless tenants then they must take the risk, and remember that it is the councils who are approaching me, desperate to house their expensive B&B clients.
Nobody wants to guarantee these individuals and councils must be told by landlords collectively that we will no longer take the risk.

Rosalind is correct on this.....

Landlords cannot get insurers to pursue a claim against malicious damage by tenants so there is no reason to take on inexperienced and potentially volatile/ vindictive tenants, whatever their provenance. No matter that their rent may be paid by .....? If they go on the rampage as disgruntled tenants in the evicition queue, there is no hope of any redress from any quarters.

I have had three properties trashed by tenants with good tenant histories, all of years standing. They got frustrated by the slow moving beast called social housing and the sorry mess it is and then they didn't like the offer of a B&B room indefinitely while they wait for a place - in lieu of the 3 or 4-bedroom house they still occupy and have long since stopped paying for.

Form an orderly queue and I'll send photos of my three trashed properties: a whole housefull of previously fully working white goods thrown into the streets and/or garden, ditto weather-soaked sofas that the Council refuse to collect, malicious interior damage i.e. walls defaced in every manner imaginable and skylights deliberately left open so that the floor coverings are explosed to the elements requiring replacement throughout in the open plan layout the tenants so loved when they moved in.

A large shed rewired for cannabis-growing with all the evidence of illicit activity is obvious: roof gving way under intense heat stress, multiple cables and light fittings still attached to what was previously a manual-tool only workshop, and remnants of stripped plants everywhere. Do the police care? No, they don't. They miracurously need access to an inaccessible garden while the plants are being cultivated. Whether to pursue this or not or to other crimes? I'd prosecute regardless of neighbours' regular complaints of being overwhelmed by the stench of pot ..... Bla Bla Bla.... so it goes, so it carries on.

Costs for the malicious damage? £13k x twice and £8k once. Not recoverable from anywhere and the Court always awards any deposit to be used against rent arrears. The tenant has no skin in the game of malicious damage recovery.

In all three cases, the Council insisted on a full tenant history being given to them. In all three cases they got it in chapter and verse: Photographic Inventory & Schedule of Condition at tenancy start, rent schedule and tenant payment history, planned & unplanned maintenance schedules with sign-off dates within 48 hours, a full non-aggressive communications log throughout until the bailiff visit and finally the Exit Inventory & Schedule of Condition on tenancy end with keys in the landlord's possession.

Did it cost the landlord??? Yes it did. £13k x 2 and £8k once.

What happened to the tenants? Nothing on their tenant record or their huge debt stopped them from being offered housing suitable for their needs. All 3 cases spent time in Council supported stop-gap accommodation for 12-14 months. The two £13k wreckers now live in brand new houses on newly finished estates - like nothing ever happened in their lives before they got there.

As for Council incentives to take tenants..... DON'T FALL FOR IT...... AND DEFINITELY DO NOT ACCEPT IT..... without cast iron guarantees that there are healthy home-owning earners behind those who the Council are seeking to house, it's honestly not worth the risk.

Reply to the comment left by LordOf TheManor at 30/10/2020 - 21:06Lord of the Manor, - if you'd like it added to my library of trashed property photo's on Instagram, " tenantsbehavingbadly " you could send me the photo's ?

If you don't want to take the risk then sell up , take your gain or loss and get out of the market.

....or just lower the risk by being very careful who you let to.