Updating post from Reddit.

158
QUESTION
Posted by LagerBitterCider197 1 week ago
Ban on advance rent payments? i.e. six month rent paid in advance

https://theindependentlandlord.com/rent-in-advance/

Can anyone confirm that this now means that a tenant cannot offer six months rent in advance? (for example if they have a CCJ) and conversely, a landlord cannot make such an demand?

Thanks

98
37
Posted by TravelOwn4386 1 week ago

It means those tenants are shit out of luck and people need to start taking their finances more seriously. Just going to add to more problems such as homelessness or crime.

Reply
8
Posted by macarudonaradu 1 week ago

You know who else is shit out of luck? International students, international workers etc

Reply
5
Posted by TravelOwn4386 1 week ago

Yeah although I can see a return of employment based housing like they used to have. It will probably also force the students to fill the empty student flats that all these investment funds bought. They are around 20-40% full but if students can't rent private it will force them to pay extra and fill the student accommodation which are normally far more expensive to let. Sort of looks like policy is only helping corporate landlords.

Reply
3
Posted by macarudonaradu 1 week ago

Or lower the number of international students coming to the uk (impacting unis). Had the flats been a penny more expensive, i likely would not have been able to afford living in the uk as a student - ik many who would have been in a similar position. Sure some of the millionaire kids would still come, but the middle class taking loans from their home countries sure as fuck would not

Reply
3
Posted by angusssteele123332 1 week ago

Not a landlord here but this is addressing something that's become a serious issue in London. I'm sure it will have some repercussions but landlords in London have been demanding at least 3/4 months up front in rent to rent a property from anyone as a form of competition. It's made it practically impossible for anyone without sizable savings to rent a decent apartment.

Reply
1
Posted by InterestingPapaya712 1 week ago

Why? Would love to hear your reasoning.

Reply
18
Posted by TravelOwn4386 1 week ago

What landlord would risk ccj over someone without? It used to be that people with ccj could offer 6 months/12months rent up front to give them a chance of persuading a landlord to look past a ccj but this is coming to an end so I doubt any landlord would bother risking it now. So where do these tenants end up going if every landlord starts to say sorry no ccj tenants only? I guess family would put them up in some cases but majority will end up homeless. Not sure where else someone with a ccj can go?

Reply
8
Posted by InterestingPapaya712 1 week ago

Thank you. I appreciate your response and perspective on the matter.

Reply
4
Posted by Alarming-Ad-881 1 week ago

TBF the cohort of people holding recent CCJs who also have 6-10k in savings is a fairly small one!

Reply
1
Posted by Isogash 1 week ago

There are other solutions there, notably a guarantor (private or otherwise) who can hold money in deposit in order to guarantee delivery of rent on schedule.

Reply
4
Posted by TravelOwn4386 1 week ago

This would be a lot of extra faffing around guarantors don't usually hold a deposit of any sort. Yes things could change in future but reading about it there seems to be a lot of legal admin work around this. A lot of tenants struggle to even find a guarantor so adding complexity to the mix isn't helpful.

Reply
-1
Posted by Isogash 1 week ago

Sure, but I'd much rather that the rules around CCJs were changed than that landlords race to get bigger advance payments.

Reply
3
Posted by TravelOwn4386 1 week ago

By making people pay their debt? You only get a ccj by owing someone money, if people manage money better they wouldn't get a ccj in the first instance. I would like to see the rules changed to where a ccj actually stays with someone until they pay it off as it gets wiped after 6 years which is pointless the only people that lose out are the people that they owe money to. Pushing more businesses into debt. I also don't agree that businesses can avoid paying debts too.

Reply
1
Posted by Charming_Cold_2599 1 week ago

The debt isn’t wiped, only the credit report. As far as I’m aware the debt is still owed - whether it’s enforced is a different story though.

Reply
2
Posted by TravelOwn4386 1 week ago

Wow I never knew that but if they haven't paid in 6 years with a ccj what incentive would they have to make them pay up?

Reply
2
Posted by Charming_Cold_2599 1 week ago

That’s the problem really, they’re still liable for the debt but don’t have much incentive to acknowledge it if they haven’t already.

Would likely need further action such as bailiffs but I’d imagine you’d be throwing money chasing money really.

Reply
0
Posted by Anon 1 second ago
Reply
1
Posted by Mistigeblou 1 week ago

My mother is my guarantor (has been for 20 years) she does not hold any money its simply if i got into rent arrears, which i never have, she can be hauled into court along with me for claiming it back

Reply
1
Posted by Isogash 1 week ago

Yes, guarantors do not need to hold money in deposit, but it's something that possibly could be done as part of a scheme to help tenants who are specifically struggling with the consequences of a CCJ.

Reply
1
Posted by Mistigeblou 1 week ago

It would be hard to navigate a 'holding of money' especially so if either party was on means tested benefits.

Reply
1
Posted by Isogash 1 week ago

Yes, guarantors do not need to hold money in deposit, but it's something that possibly could be done as part of a scheme to help tenants who are specifically struggling with the consequences of a CCJ.

Reply
5
Posted by MethylceIl-OwI-3518 1 week ago

Not a landlord but I imagine if you have a person who wants to rent the property but they have a CCJ then the landlord isn’t going to want to take that risk. Whereas if they offered 6 months up front the risk is lower because you’ve got at least half of a yearly tenancy already

Reply
35
Posted by chat5251 1 week ago

Feel bad for those not native to the UK or with bad credit history; will make them unable to get a place to live.

Unsure why Labour would do this to them.

Reply
23
Posted by twonaq 1 week ago

Oh well, at least those of us with ok credit history but no lump of cash on hand will have a fair chance now. How can I as a parent and sole provider, earning minimum wage, compete when others are offering to pay up 6k in advance?

Reply
10
Posted by Beginning-Picture910 1 week ago

Literally. And if I had 6k in savings I'm hardly going to want to waste it on my landlord am I?

Reply
3
Posted by WunnaCry 1 week ago

is it only good if it benefits you?

Reply
2
Posted by twonaq 1 week ago

It’s better if it benefits people who need the help.

Reply
0
Posted by Acceptable-Store135 1 week ago

this.

Reply
7
Posted by throwaway-15812 1 week ago

Because in the current situation people without thousands in cash upfront can’t even get viewings half the time

Reply
4
Posted by CelestialKingdom 1 week ago

ideology and lack of understanding at best - in cahoots with the large build-to-rent funds at worst 

Reply
14
Posted by Full_Atmosphere2969 1 week ago

It means if you have a CCJ you're just going to get the 'sorry but other tenants are more suitable' line more.

Even if you have a year up front it can't even be taken.

Reply
14
Posted by tiasaiwr 1 week ago

Also if you're a recent immigrant in a skilled job and with plenty of money or a rich foreign student.

Such a stupid addition to the bill.

Reply
3
Posted by 6f937f00-3166-11e4-8 1 week ago

Or anyone with an unstable income like freelancer or contractor

Reply
4
Posted by aitorbk 1 week ago

Not even that. Just select the other ones.

Reply
1
Posted by TravelOwn4386 1 week ago

I wonder if it will become a case of oh nice watch how about I give you 11months value of rent for the watch and oh I will take the property here is 1 month rent.

Reply
1
Posted by iceman58796 1 week ago

People would be stupid to do that though, as there'd be no protection of your money.

Reply
2
Posted by TravelOwn4386 1 week ago

Yeah I was just thinking that but people get pretty desperate when they need a roof over their head.

Reply
12
Posted by Mysterious_Act_3652 1 week ago

You are right. As a landlord I’ve occasionally accepted 6 or 12 months up front from a slightly more marginal applicant (retirees, self employed etc.). With this change the property would just go to the full time employed couple.
The government should just stay out of the market.

Reply
23
Posted by Careful_Adeptness799 1 week ago

Likewise one of mine is bankrupt nobody would touch them. 6 months upfront I took the risk. Best tenants ever they have been trouble free for 7 years!!

This is not a good idea.

Reply
6
Posted by LazyFish1921 1 week ago

My grandad who is 87 suddenly needed to be rehoused and independent living places all had massive queues. Viewed loads of rentals but he didn't meet affordability checks. Eventually just offered to pay 6 months up front and got accepted immediately.

No idea what we'll do if this comes into effect and he has to leave his current flat...

Reply
6
Posted by Omega_scriptura 1 week ago

Be thankful in the knowledge that your misery is contributing to the destruction of the private rental sector. Why is the government destroying part of the economy when they’re trying to grow it? That’s a great question. But don’t ask them as they haven’t got a clue what the answer is, beyond some “LANDLORDS BAD. SOCIAL HOUSING GOOD” rubbish.

Reply
2
Posted by Good_Background_243 1 week ago

I see both sides of this. It's a hamfisted, idiotic response...

But something does need to be done about piss-taking landlords.

Reply
1
Posted by ilikec4ke 1 week ago

Just out of curiosity why is retired a bad thing?

Pension income is guaranteed right? They're more stable than employed people who can lose their jobs at the drop of a hat.

Reply
1
Posted by Daniel-cfs-sufferer 1 week ago

I was in a position when I started to rent that i was a lorry driver making decent money but because it was technically a zero hours contract the only way I could rent was by paying 6 monthly and 8 years later I'm doing the same as it suits me due to now not being able to work through disability and on universal credit, it's easier for me to pay every 6 months because i don't get enough help so have to borrow to top up before I pay my rent, if it changed to monthly I'd end up in a muddle !

Reply
11
Posted by Cazarza 1 week ago

This is not law yet. As the article states right at the beginning this has been added in to the current bill and may be changed or even removed before it becomes law

Reply
2
Posted by Mayoday_Im_in_love 1 week ago

Why would anyone think this is a good idea? A landlord has a few perspective tenants, some with a credit history, salary records and generally not a flight or squatting risk. Others without. It might be sensible to stop landlords having credit and affordability criteria AND taking rent in advance. This seems like the worst of both worlds.

Reply
1
Posted by dmmeyourfloof 1 week ago

*prospective

Reply
2
Posted by Mayoday_Im_in_love 1 week ago

Indeed!

Reply
1
Posted by AccordingBasket8166 1 week ago

But who would then insure the landlord is the issue

Reply
2
Posted by TrainingDivergence 1 week ago

Sure, but it's passed the house of commons first reading and there is a decent chance this aspect of the bill will not be modified before it becomes law

Reply
1
Posted by LagerBitterCider197 1 week ago

Thanks

Reply
8
Posted by DancingBukka 1 week ago

If/when it comes into law - Yes.

Paying/accepting more than 1 month's worth of rent in advance will no longer be legal.

Guarantors will however still be allowed.

Reply
7
Posted by zzkj 1 week ago

That part about Guarantors is interesting. I wonder if companies will spring up to act as guarantor middlemen, taking the 6 months rent and paying it out monthly to the landlord. As always with governments distorting markets there are unintended consequences.

Reply
6
Posted by DancingBukka 1 week ago

Yes, there are already businesses doing this for a fee. 

Reply
2
Posted by LagerBitterCider197 1 week ago

There are companies already doing this service

Reply
4
Posted by m3taphysics 1 week ago

I’ve never personally asked for it but tenants have asked me if they can pay up front. Usually students who get a lump sum grant. So let’s hope they can instead be financially responsible!

Reply
4
Posted by puffinix 1 week ago

To people worrying about how this will impact people with CCJs, this is not a huge problem.

While you cannot pay the landlord up front (and there is very good reason for this), under this law you can set up a custodial trust - giving effectively the same end results - but without the risk of a landlord absolutely fucking someone over.

Basically you create a special kind of bank account in the tenants name, that nobody can access unless rent is proved to be unpaid, or notice to conclude the tenancy is given.

Reply
2
Posted by LagerBitterCider197 1 week ago

interesting

Reply
2
Posted by puffinix 1 week ago

Yeah, basically deposit protection but in reverse.

Reply
2
Posted by woodenwww 1 week ago

What does ccj stand for?

Reply
2
Posted by puffinix 1 week ago

County court judgement.

Means you owe money in a bad way.

Reply
3
Posted by Saliiim 1 week ago

This is going to hurt tenants more than landlords. 

Reply
4
Posted by Insane-Membrane-92 1 week ago

Absolutely everything does. Tenants are in need of housing, so landlords can pick and choose. There seems to be no legislation at all that can make the relationship "fair".

Reply
0
Posted by Arimelldansen 1 week ago

Abolish landlords could do it

Reply
2
Posted by 96percent_chimp 1 week ago

I've both paid advance rent as a tenant and accepted it as a landlord. In both cases, the key to making it a secure solution for landlord and tenant was that the total sum was held in escrow by the agent and paid to the landlord on a monthly basis.

It was an equitable arrangement for both parties that enabled me to rent when I had savings but poor credit and limited income. Seems like a shame to ban them.

Reply
3
Posted by RagerRambo 1 week ago

What's exactly the benefit here to the tenant or the landlord. Only party that wins is the agent collecting a fee or benefiting from large cash reserve earning interest.

Reply
-1
Posted by m3taphysics 1 week ago

If you go to a credit agency and ask for a credit card, or a loan, they look at your financial history and decide if you’re able to repay it. It’s the same for renting

Reply
4
Posted by RagerRambo 1 week ago

That happens already now. That's what referencing check includes. There will still be those that are borderline pass or fail, and why rent upfront is still valuable to the tenant

Reply
1
Posted by m3taphysics 1 week ago

Yes of course I thought you were asking what the benefit was ? It’s more security for the landlord if the applicant hasn’t got the best history of repayment or is maybe just arriving and job hunting

Reply
2
Posted by RagerRambo 1 week ago

No. What's the benefit of escrowing. Landlord wants guaranteed rent, extra liquidity is useful too having a lump sum. Escrowing just adds extra steps for the landlord to get their rent.

For the tenant, the money is already been paid and they are bound by the tenancy to pay full rent for the term. So again, what's the benefit to escrowing.

Reply
2
Posted by tuiroo007 1 week ago

When we moved back to the UK after a few years overseas, the landlord couldn’t credit check us, so our solution (which was accepted) was to pay 6 months upfront. We would have been stuffed otherwise. In this area a rental gets over 100 applicants, so no chance for folk in our position.

Reply
2
Posted by markp81 1 week ago

Wonder if we will see some trying to skirt it with Rent £1,000 pcm So 12 month tenancy Month 1 rent:£6k Months 2-6:£1 pcm Months 7-12: £1,000 pcm Who is going to enforce/challenge it Is a tenant going to apply to a court for a refund. Would a court order the repayment of £5k and not increase the rent on months 2-6?
I can see some people trying it and tenants accepting it to get the property if they have poor credit/circumstances etc.

Reply
2
Posted by joolster 1 week ago

Could the money be put in escrow so it’s still having to be paid up front but only released as needed to a LL though? Feels like that protects both parties.

Reply
2
Posted by darrenturn90 1 week ago

I can’t see how they could enforce a tenant offering this.

They however can enforce a landlord making this a requirement

Reply
2
Posted by Iacoma1973 1 week ago

This really does seem like choosing one evil or a different type of evil, no matter which side you land on

Why not choose neither, and go for a third option?

Productiv

Reply
2
Posted by SillyStallion 1 week ago

It's made me so mad as you used to be able to talk landlord into accepting pets by paying 6 months upfront :(

Reply
2
Posted by rpprrR 1 week ago

I had a CCJ when I was last looking to rent a property. Was happy to offer a few months up front as it meant we were able to secure somewhere to live.

Without that option we’d have needed a guarantor which we can’t get.

We were served an s21 at our previous address as the landlord was selling.

I’m assuming without the option to pay a few months upfront, we’d have had to have waited until the courts enforced the s21 and gone to the councils?

This ban seems like it’s going to add a lot of stress to potential tenants who have less than ideal credit scores.

Reply
1
Posted by KeepitReal19 1 week ago

There is no limit  legally on this. Just paid six months up front to secure a 12 months tenancy. Standard is  6 months, 12 months or even 36 months! ( though moreso on commercial) in practice. Usually for a reference reason (I.e my income on my company is less than 2 years) As a previous landlord myself I always did a credit check and weighed up the risk - wouldn't anyone do this if one was a landlord. I agree with leniency as a tenant, but to make law fair is difficult. Landlords and tenants alike will take the biscuit given half the chance. Sadly not everyone has morals or honesty...

Reply
1
Posted by SeidunaUK 1 week ago

Lol landlord has to take in a tenant who is already in arrears what a joke

Reply
1
Posted by phpadam 1 week ago

Landlord doesnt have to take anyone on, especialy if in arrears.

Reply
1
Posted by SeidunaUK 1 week ago

I dunno the article says in some circumstances under this proposal where the contract is signed but the tenant doesn't pay before moving in

Reply
1
Posted by Far-Crow-7195 1 week ago

I lived abroad half my life and had no UK credit history to speak of. Paying 6 months rent up front got me back in the system. This well meaning stupidity will just stop a bunch of people renting.

Reply
1
Posted by EggRepresentative347 1 week ago

From working jn homelessness, mental health services and benefits, the fact that landlords request 6 months ria at times is just not realistic, especially with the out of control rents being charged

Reply
1
Posted by phpadam 1 week ago

It is realistic, if it wasnt they they woudnt rent out the property time and time again. Your trying to house at-risk, high-risk tenants with no income, mental instability, no assets, living off the safety net. It should be hard to get private rentals for that tenant profile.

Your complaint should be that social housing, the type of housing designed for that kind of tenant profile is not avaliable.

Reply
1
Posted by yourmatefrank 1 week ago

I can’t believe people are complaining about this?

People will honestly just complain about anything. This should’ve been outlawed years ago!

Reply
1
Posted by phpadam 1 week ago

You've not read the comments, as to why it shoudnt be banned.

Reply
1
Posted by lysergic101 1 week ago

Cannabis growers love the 6 months upfront rent arrangement.

Reply
1
Posted by Flat_Perception_6606 5 days ago

I’m scared of this because being someone who is alone only way I can get a flat is 6 months in advance and I’m very vunrable I of t have no Cjjs but just no garountor

Reply
1
Posted by DeezA123 5 days ago

Disabled and low income households already struggle with the affordability criteria most referencing agencies use and offering upfront rent was the only way to circumvent this obstacle for them. The same for self-employed and people new to the country.

Can someone educate me as to who this law benefits and the reason for it?

Reply
0
Posted by Dingle_ 1 week ago

As far as I’m aware the plans would allow you to accept advance rent payments however you cannot request them

Reply
-2
Posted by Jakes_Snake_ 1 week ago

Yes. I’ve never asked for advanced rent. See no need.

Reply
4
Posted by LagerBitterCider197 1 week ago

Yes, but many landlords may be open to accepting a tenant with poor credit if they offer advance rent?

Reply
-9
Posted by Jakes_Snake_ 1 week ago

Yeah I get why.Private landlords shouldn’t provide social housing.

Reply
9
Posted by Dry_Bumblebee1111 1 week ago

In what sense is it social housing? Payment is being made, just up front rather than on an ongoing basis.

I work an unconventional job, with a feast/famine style payment situation. I've paid in advance the past decade, a few months here and there, sometimes up to a year, because monthly payments wouldn't work out for my income and savings. 

How is that a social housing situation to you? 

Reply
-9
Posted by Jakes_Snake_ 1 week ago

They can’t afford it. So it’s social housing.

Reply
7
Posted by herefor_fun24 1 week ago

They can afford it. So it's not social housing

Reply
4
Posted by Dry_Bumblebee1111 1 week ago

So you actually don't understand the meaning of "afford" or "social housing"?

Who is "they"? My comment is about myself! 

Reply
3
Posted by LootBoxControversy 1 week ago

So confidently wrong.

Reply