You take the risk and I will take the tenant!

I thought that if LHAs or Councils wanted to effectively sub let your property, the rent and maintenance would be guaranteed for the period you agreed to (e.g. 5 years).

The downside to the landlord being lower rents compared to what you would normally expect to receive.

If this is not the case with David then I agree that terms need to be defined in relation to what benefits David is receiving for a lower rent and effectively locking this in for 5 years.

I think Michaels reply is measured and valid. 'without limit' is the wrong term. It is unreasonable to expect any person or organisation to agree to this. Would you... ever?

Again I was one of those LL's that thought I'd also help with the homeless crisis by helping LC's with their ever increasing homeless list...
NEVER AGAIN!
Despite the LC housing officer fully agreeing and understanding the complete and total risk that LL's take as opposed to the LC's who take no risk at all (a months rent in advance and a 5 week deposit bond is apparently enough - laughable!) they say their hands are tied.
No problem then - just don't call me asking for flats. Essentially if the homeless are LC's responsibility and they want to pass over that responsibility, it comes at a cost. End of. If there were insurance or other things that a LL could envoke to fully mitigate any risk then we would. Of course that cost would have to be taken into account with the rent etc. If our hands are tied on that basis then there is no reason why a LL would take that risk knowing what we all know that those on the bottom rung of the ladder in the main cause the most issues.
If the LC's don't want to step up, take a long hard look at the long term cost of emergency housing, and take more financial risk liability for those that are hauled up in expensive B&B's etc, then tough.
As I have blatantly said to LC officers...I am not the 4th Emergency Service. I am a private individual essentially selling a service and if you don't like the terms don't ask.
The reality is we ARE treating the homeless just like any other potential tenant - making a financial risk assessment and deciding on that basis. Simples.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Crooks at 31/10/2020 - 08:17
...possibly but then a better option would be to be able to raise the deposit levels perhaps specifically for homeless needing places so that if the worse case scenario does happen and the place is trashed there is a pot to claim this back from?
In the current climate though does not take account of any rent not being paid, unless again DWP AUTOMATCALLY pay LL's direct from now on?

I have a really good relationship with http://www.RentGuarantor.com they should be able to assist as they work with people on benefits and deal with councils, whilst not an unlimited damage guarantee they are covering me up to 10k. Only needed to claim rent and damages once up to now after an absconder but it was a smooth process.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Crooks at 31/10/2020 - 08:17I and you Mark have to take risk without limit every time a property is let. If we choose our tenants carefully then the risk is minimised, if we take homeless tenants from councils then the risk is high, maybe to the extent of the property being totally destroyed. In such circumstances it is reasonable for the council to be asked to take the risk, the alternative is not to take the tenant.

Reply to the comment left by David Price at 31/10/2020 - 09:17
You don't take risk without limit. The market value of the property (if destroyed) plus costs is the limit of liability. i.e. a limit.

Reply to the comment left by WP at 31/10/2020 - 08:36
Cannot take more than 5 weeks worth of rent as a Deposit, 'courtesy' (sic) of the Tenant Fee Ban2019

Reply to the comment left by Chris @ Possession Friend at 31/10/2020 - 10:15
Yes, a landlord friend of mine had to turn someone down last month who said he was a disabled veteran who can't get a guarantor - he had asked if he could pay a '3 month retainer' instead. The landlord told him that unfortunately the Government won't allow a deposit of more than 5 weeks. Shelter can take this up with the Government - as they are the ones causing any 'discriminatory' effect here - just as they do with Right to Rent.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Crooks at 31/10/2020 - 10:14Mark there may be a limit to the amount of damage a tenant can do but that limit is not just the value of the property, it may be that a tenant torched the property and in so doing burned down the two adjacent properties (it has happened to me and it happened in London on 2 September 1666). I am not saying there is no limit, just that the council must take on the risk with no limit of liability if they wish me to take their tenants. I am not fussed, remember it is the councils who are approaching me.

What I am suggesting is a united front from landlords "You take the risk and I will take the tenant".

I've been posting on this very subject for ages. I have a simple solution that is going to make a difference. Writing to people means Jack s***t. Gov fund shelter to bash landlords. It's a fact. Shelter are no more than a lobbying organisation that have nice offices & drive nice cars back to suburbia to their lovely houses & nice lives. They won't ever make a difference to homeless people.

The way we make a difference is to state in our rental ads that DSS tenant must have a letter from UC stating that they will sign as legal guarantor on the AST. Of course this isn't going to be produced as they won't. But in the short term it weeds out benefits tenants while keeping us on the right side of the law. In the long term it might encourage government to bring about changes that make a difference. Unlikely I know, but what do we have to lose by including the clause in the ad? Nothing.