Updating post from Reddit.
I am single, no pets, no kids, non smoker, make £31k, great credit score and history, in credit with my bills, no CCJs, no criminal record, have rented for many years, deposit and reference and rent ready and yet - you demand guarantors. (I offer you up to 12 months' rent in advance and nope you do not budge.)
What is the meaning of this. You do not everyone has access to a guarantor right? Why not just take out insurance instead of taking it out on perfectly fine tenants who have never missed the rent once in their life? Kind regards, good clean bill-paying tenant.
I know that for at least some insurers, a guarantor is required.
Thats presumably non payment of rent insurance?
Yes.
Which wouldn’t be needed if you had a guarantor - insurance just taking you for easy money
Which is what most insurers do, non?
Correct. It's risk assessment.
I know someone that insurers boats in Suez canel. You get great discounts if you take an armed escort because those boats never get taken by pirates, as not only are they defended but they have intelligence from ground crews in the area as part of the security package.
There are situations where guarantors also don’t pay rent just heads up.
Of course there are. But the landlord then has two people which they have a legal case against. How many more do they need?
My insurance says I must use a guarantor for the policy to be valid , I’ve had tenants not pay the rent for 8+ months so I only take verified tenants now with guarantors , I like many other landlords have been taken for a ride hence why .
Yep…. I had one tenant not pay for 12 months… then just walked away. Thanks for that.
Hence we need to have system like in US, nonpayment, call police, kick out, change locks. Otherwise everyone without property like to complain about bad LL, but as soon as tenant is bad - its ok, co LL is worse. Na, i had tenants wLing away after months of no paymebt
Probably because here the councils have responsibility for homeless people so just kicking people out would put a bigger strain on the councils who don’t have enough money to deal with it
I agree as well, coz i’m all for protecting vulnerable, however, not paying for rent, put strain on landlords, potentially causing them thousands in damages from non payment, very highly huge refurbishment costs if property is damaged - again money, loosing the house due to non payment of mortgage- and that might be the only resource LL has to keep roof about his and his family’s head. But lets be honest, 9/10 tenants wont give a flying f about landlords coz they think ALL landlords are scum, and thats not true. One of problem here, if LL doesn’t pay for mortgage, council tax etc - they can potentially loose huge asset - their house. If tenant doesn’t pay rent for months, get themselves kicked out by court, there is a high chance they will be back in council houses very shortly and NOTHING will happen to their finances. So LLs should be given equal rights. Perhaps councils can build housing outside of big cities, create factories, allow people live there in affordable housing and collect money towards rent from the pay… its win win for government/councils and not working tenants or those with 1 strike for non payment and bejng kicked out
No, what we need is for people to stop buying multiple homes to make money by driving house prices up and pricing people out of the market so that they have to rent.
Sure, but not everyone has 20+ houses. Plus u cannot stop people buying houses under ltd companies or shell/trusts. This cannot be stopped. But lets be honest, person on 30k cannot afford house worth even 300k. But if he rents that house for 1,5k - it will be viable. However, whilst costs of housing goes up, interest rates go up, LL cannot claim expenses against taxes, rhen of course prices will go up. But issue of this topic is NOT related to lack of properties, but the fact that a lot of people prefer NOT to pay their rent and then abuse the law and the fact that they cannot be kicked out quickly. And if tenant doesn’t care about causing financial harm to potentially accidental landlord, the n why shoukd LL care about tenant. It should be fair but sadly its in 99% on the side of the tenants
Are you serious?
You think if someone can't afford a mortgage payment, they can afford the mortgage + landlords profit?
Again, NOT all landlords are wealthy off profits. How about risks related to broken white goods? Leaking roof? Maybe electrical faults? Upgrading boiler? Sudden increase in interest rates whilst contract for another year was signed a month before that didn’t include all those risks…. Also, if you dont like paying rent, buy your own property, pay 20% downpayment…what, too much? How about all expenses related to solicitors, fees, stamp duty, renovations etc. And this list goes on and on and on. And no, cleaner in McDonalds or cashier in Lloyds cannot afford buying new home, are they going to be homeless, no, they can rent property from someone…and rentals are needed. But from the tone that you set: mortgage + profits, you are definitely not a property owner. Hence you cannot put yourself in Ll’s shoes.
Sure, but not everyone has 20+ houses. Plus u cannot stop people buying houses under ltd companies or shell/trusts. This cannot be stopped. But lets be honest, person on 30k cannot afford house worth even 300k. But if he rents that house for 1,5k - it will be viable. However, whilst costs of housing goes up, interest rates go up, LL cannot claim expenses against taxes, rhen of course prices will go up. But issue of this topic is NOT related to lack of properties, but the fact that a lot of people prefer NOT to pay their rent and then abuse the law and the fact that they cannot be kicked out quickly. And if tenant doesn’t care about causing financial harm to potentially accidental landlord, the n why shoukd LL care about tenant. It should be fair but sadly its in 99% on the side of the tenants
Houses are surprisingly expensive to maintain. A lot of renters don't see the actual financial expenses of the landlord and are blinkered to what goes on being the scenes.
Taxes, insurance, mortgage if applicable, maintained obviously. It all adds up. Even if you own your own house, suddenly you'll get brutally slammed with a massive bill sooner or later.
The hilarious thing is that the guarantor is often in a worse financial position than the renter.
Not really , most guarantors are home owners , they sign a legally binding document which gives a landlord the right to take them to court and make a claim against they’re home if they don’t pay the rent arrears etc .
This is why it’s so important for guarantors to understand what they are signing .
How do we know you've never missed a payment? It's not like we can verify references.
Insurance policies have their own requirements, excess, go up when used, have costs and don't guarantee pay outs for everything anyway.
Why would that not take a guarantor if it's on offer?
Some landlords do insist on guarantors. These are the more risk averse ones. What is your assumption that people don't based on?
Bank statements
Just buy it
Because you will get paid (see 1)
People who want to get paid
It seems like you don't actually want answers to your question, you just want to rant. Which is fine, but a shame when you take it out on people who have answered your questions as though you're genuinely interested.
If I had a way of earning money and one way will earn me the money without having to buy extra insurance, and the other way earns the exact same amount but requires a lot of taking things on faith and insurance just in case, what incentive would there be for taking the risk?
I know your snarky answer will be "because you will get paid" but that only works if the alternative is that you wouldn't be paid anything. For what it's worth, I've rented a lot of different places and never needed a guarantor provided my income was a particular multiple of the rent - so I feel like this doesn't typically apply as a blanket policy by landlords anyway.
No, I am genuinely interested. When you can demonstrate your ability to pay bills transparently (not just rent but water, gas, electric, council tax, credit cards et al.) yet the other party still demands hard guarantees that is simply not fair business. And while it is a little insulting to not be treated as a capable adult I find it more funny than anything else.
My point is, there is already no risk or requirement of faith. That part is cleared. Yet landlords want more buffer space. How would you feel if you were only able to do business when your parents are wealthy doctors. In other words born into the right family? So apologise if I sound snarky.
>And while it is a little insulting to not be treated as a capable adult I find it more funny than anything else.
Unfortunately, a significant minority of people genuinely aren't capable adults. There are lots who think that they can just not pay their bills for a year, not even try to talk about with the creditor, and they think that the problem will just magically go away.
When you run any sort of business, there's no way to know if the person who just walked through the door is one of those people or not. Bank statements and proof of income can be forged with a PDF editor, and the kind of people who think that they can get away with not paying their rent are also the kind of people who think that a bit of cheeky fraud is just "faking it until you make it".
True, many adults are idiots. Also there are a lot of thugs out there using fake names and just being general retards. They are also idiots.
But you can detect forgery on a PDF instantly if google for a tool. I would expect my landlord to be just as resourceful, not sitting around horrified to death at the thought of someone possibly lying to them and demanding guarantees (which may also be facetious)
You sound dodgy my friend. I earn the same amount as you and I know it to be little. One month of lost earnings and we're going to be in serious arrears. It's hard to get tenants who don't pay out. This is why people like us need guarantors.
..One month of lost earnings and you're screwed? Have you looked into getting a savings account?
If you read his OP you’d see he has at least 12 months up front to pay. So he has more savings than you clearly. Maybe your pay is so little because you live beyond your means?
Bank statements don't prove who you paid, what your contract was, what your rent increases were etc.
Just provide a guarantor.
Guarantors aren't just for rent (also, see 1, might not get paid).
Why do you assume they need to not have a guarantor to get paid?
We can both be reductionist about it, being concise doesn't make you right. Just because you think something, it doesn't make it true.
You might think your bank statements prove it for example, but they don't know if you resigned at a higher rate, statements don't tend to show the account number and sort code for them to cross reference to your contracts etc.
You can't honestly think that saying "well I just want you to pay hundreds of pounds for a less robust solution, so you should" is any kind of a business case for doing something.
You don't understand what guarantors are for, yet judge the option.
And you don't understand the market.
Yet you are so quick to dismiss someone giving you the reasons.
Even if all of the above wasn't true... You don't have to agree without someone's reasons.
Combined with you saying "what is the meaning of this" you honestly just sound like you'd be a nightmare tenant. Very demanding, massive over reach of expectations, misunderstanding of the situation and, frankly a pretty confrontational attitude to go with it.
All in all... A nightmare tenant to deal with.
Statement do show the account numbers you transfer money to. Super easy, you can pull a statement with all payments to landlord bank details, along with tenancy agreement. This shows amount due, and bank statements will show dates, times, amounts. It's actually very easy to do number 1.
None of your points are particularly interesting (if you made any? not sure) I mean you talk about not having my account number and sort code - this is what I am literally trying to give you if you please let me !?!
I feel pretty confident about the market, have 2 viewings next week, sadly 3 prospects turned me down straight away because no guarantor. And no negotiation from you lot - offer of rent increase, 3-6-12 months upfront, doesn't matter because you want a guarantor. That's not market mentality and no one benefits from that. And if you think a clean, quiet, good billpayer is a nightmare tenant there must be something in the water.
Not said anything about your account number and sort code. I was referring to the one you're paying.
Their priorities not being aligned to yours doesn't mean "no one benefits". Risk is more of a consideration than an extra 20% margin to them, and that's ok.
Again, your attitude makes you a nightmare, which you've provided a great example of in your first paragraph.
Have you considered asking if they require a guarantor up front? Seems like t would save everyone some time.
Because landlords like to get the rent paid. Unfortunately not everyone is like you say. Make your same claim to your potential guarantor surely it’s no issue.
Grown fucking adults shouldn't need a guarantor ffs.
You would think! I’m guessing you’ve never been a landlord.
I like to pay them but cannot provide guarantees, left my crystal ball on another planet sorry.
But your problem is many others can, either by providing a guarantor or by paying upfront. In a free market that is fair.
This argument falls flat when LLs refuse even my offer of 12 months' rent upfront
Tbh that is a red flag in itself. People who turn homes into growing operations have a lot of cash on hand and it takes a lot more than 12 month’s rent to put that right.
Edit: Not a Landlord! Property Manager who has seen a lot of shit
Not a LL but have worked on a lot of rental properties for LLs doing maintenance and refurbs, the number of times people offer cash upfront then turn the house into a grow factory is actually quite high. It happens a lot more than you would think.
i myself couldn't provide a guarantor due to not having any living members of my family left, so i can appreciate OPs frustration. ultimately, if the LL wants a guarantor, then that is the decision they have made about THEIR asset.
I was very fortunate that my last rental i was there for 8 years and had no rent increase as i was paying on time and the payment more than covered the mortgage and I carried out maintenance and only charging for parts.
the LL was upfront and said when my kids are old enough, I want them to have the property. When the kids were of age, i began looking for another rental. when i checked the market price for houses on the same road, i realised i was paying £500 under the market price.
unfortunately, i sustained a spinal injury, which stopped me from climbing stairs and left me isolated, i got very very lucky to get a ground floor flat with a housing association in another town about 15 miles from my last home. So to summarise society needs landlords, its the banks and the government that have fucked up the rental market.
Now I'm a big time drug dealer? I wish ! If that was really the case, my plan would be to rent a penthouse, get high all day and nail your daughters. Now you've got me thinking.
Dude…
I'm sorry, they are dudes. Well doesn't matter.
You can quite easily exceed 12 months rent worth of damages.
Silly. Not every tenant is a walking timebomb
Exactly but the 10% that are, are indistinguishable from the rest unfortunately.
I agree but you have to understand when the government makes it basically impossible to evict a bad tenant in any reasonable time scale this is what ends up happening.
I don’t use guarantors but I can absolutely understand why it is happening
An S8 is 14 days. That is not basically impossible, it's pretty straightforward. Pay up or GTFO
Also I hate shitty abusive tenants because they hurt the cause of good ones
Not entirely true is it?
2 months of arrears before a 14 day notice period to then begin an incredibly lengthy eviction process. This will rise to 3 months arrears with the new renters reform bill.
And if they don’t leave? 6 months to get a court order?
If you stroll in and change the locks because a non paying tenant is essentially squatting you are probably going to jail
They want to get property for investment but don’t want to take the risks that come with it 🤦♂️
What is the rental price of the place you're looking it? Must be a competitive market in your local area. So either landlords have a lot of choice and are being picky or you're looking for a place which doesn't meet the affordability criteria of the refencing requirements
Guessing it’s affordability as well.
It's not the prices, it's the lack of availability. Just trying to relocate here was a load of bollocks. One viewing had at least a dozen tenants queuing out on the street. Another (fake) landlord tried to scam me. Ended up living in a complete dump on a dodgy side of town. Landlords here get more demand than a hot zoomer on bumble.
Thus they can insist on whatever hurdles benefits them. They don't care if it inconveniences you.
And then they lose a good tenant. So they lose out too
But if they have people queueing out the door.. They don't lose out.
You're starting from the assumption of "if they don't meet your terms, they're losing out". Which doesn't fit with you saying there is high demand.
That attitude has the same energy as dating with an attitude that you're gods gift to the relevant gender(s). You're not going to get far on the dating scene with that, and you won't get far interviewing with that.
Society loses out, by landlords buying multiple properties and driving up house prices so that people can't afford to own and are forced to rent at marked up prices so that someone else can pay a mortgage and build equity and buy even more houses and continue the cycle.
Which is nothing to do with the debate at hand.
Whether you think landlords are a net gain/loss to society is not relevant to whether they are losing out by not pandering to OPs demands.
If you track house prices and factor in inflation, number of homes against demand (population growth and increased demand from lifestyle changes), and interest rates you'd be surprised at how little movement there's been.
Whilst it has gone up, doing the above doesn't factor in that land is fundamentally limited, so the same house will cost more due to the finite supply of land against increased demand.
Ultimately some people will want to rent.
Moving to a new city, those who want to leave the family home before they can buy, those who don't want the responsibility of repairs and running a home, students and other temporary residents etc.
The question is only whether there is too much.
But let's not pretend that we have an abundance of rental properties and no one who wants to live in them.
So first about quality over quantity. The quality of the tenant is ultimately what matters, not quantity. You can have 100 shitty tenants who fuck up the place or 1 tenant who is on the level. So the number of prospects a LL has, that's not so important when you think about it.
Second. Yes they are losing out. Do they want a rotating door of short term wreck heads or a long term resident with a decent job. If that LL only wants short term cash quick that is not a good sign to a tenant.
You don't have to be god's gift to a landlord but they still want it. Some people will never be able to provide guarantors and demanding so is bad for everyone.
They simply pick the best of the 100 tenants. It’s not quantity over quality, it’s just that quality + guarantor is better than quality alone.
If a landlord's necessity for a guarantor puts a troublesome tenant (and guarantor) over a good tenant then you only have yourself to blame
Yeah, LLs aren’t doing that though.
Well that just hurts your cause.
Why do you assume you're so much better than everyone else?
If there's only enough supply for 50% of tenants, why is 40% of tenants not being able to find somewhere a problem for landlords?
There's nothing said about being "better than everyone else", unless being a perfectly fine tenant is how that translates to you.
And I'm pretty sure you don't have a Mintel subscription and pulled those figures out of a Daily Express column.
You're the one saying they're missing out by not signing you.
They're only missing out if YOU fit THEIR needs best. Why do you assume you fit every landlords needs best? If you don't fit that landlords needs best, why are you certain they are missing out?
Again, your problematic attitude is showing. I used "if" for the figures to show it's an example. YOU are the one that said it's lack of supply, so no I didn't get it from the daily express. I was using YOUR cause.
Why has it gone from the view you expressed a few comments ago, to attacking how informed I am?
I'm not going to continue replying, because frankly the issues are self evident. Your attitude and lack of understanding.
There's endless good tenants.
..And bad ones too !
Well of course. But those were already filtered out.
A tenant without a guarantor does not mean a bad tenant. It just means you are willing to take the risk that someone else pays for them which is also a shot in the dark
It doesn't automatically mean a bad tenant, but stop and think about it for a minute.
The landlord can either:
Rent the property to you.
Rent the property to someone with equally good (or better) history and a guarantor.
Which would you pick? Be honest.
> also a shot in the dark
Its a shot based on verified assets. They get credit reference checked too.
I agree , it’s so horrible for tenants currently . That’s all people want is a roof over their head , not to be fighting for a place .
I’m sorry you’re going through this and I hope you find something soon .
If I can give you some information that may be if interest to you ….. a lot of this is not caused by landlords .
It’s actually a perfect storm of things caused mostly by the government’s interference.
All the new landlord legislation they’ve brought in , landlord taxation , bringing new things out continuously which have to be adhered too which costs extra money , the rise in cost of building materials and extra costs for repairs , insurance , not to mention the Liz Truss mortgage fiasco which is still costing most landlords a fortune . Lots and lots of things .
I’m quite sure you won’t want to hear this , but it’s really important because it’s caused the lack of housing out there and the increased rents . Really the government should be the ones supplying homes to our people , but they don’t invest enough and even if they do , they can’t build quick enough to keep up with our growing population .
It is all just very unfair .
If you can’t find a friend or family member of good financial standing who trusts you to pay your rent, why would a landlord do so?
Also, deposits are fine to a point, but often don’t touch the sides of the damage a tenant can do. A guarantor provides an unlimited guarantee; not just rent, but all damage costs.
I disagree with this, nobody should be guarantor for anybody else it is one of the most reckless financial decisions you can make.
I wouldn't be guarantor for my family or friends.
Yes it would be a terrible risk, unless you owed them a favour
So, you do see why someone sees you as a huge risk ? If your friends and family think this and wouldn't jump in when you have a hard time, why would any landlord risk it with you ? I know we wouldn't
Also, as 12 months in advance will not be allowed soon, too much risk involved
It's a big risk. I work in property and have some horror stories. Only do it for a close family member. Never a friend.
One way of looking at is that a renter without guarantor is effectively asking the landlord to be their guarantor. If that tenant does major damage and can't/won't pay, then it is the landlord who pays.
Landlords don't just want any old guarantor either. You want homeowners with a perfect credit history. What more do you want a letter from Jesus Christ?
They want a guarantor with sufficient assets to cover foreseeable potential losses that the landlord may otherwise incur. I’d urge you not to see it as a personal sleight, it is not. The law (and the dysfunction of the courts) has been stacked so far in the tenants favour that it is inevitable that landlords will seek to protect themselves with whatever methods remain, and some make that a blanket policy. I am not one who does this btw; a tenant of solid standing as you describe yourself would be welcome without a guarantor. Nobody will offer sympathy to landlords and I don’t ask for it, but a delinquent tenant can take over a year to remove at a cost of thousands in legals, not pay rent for a year and leave 5 figures of damage behind them. £40k loss is easily achievable. Some tenants view this as righteous retribution against the evil landlords, without comprehending that this loss increases the cost of letting and will be inevitably be reflected through higher rents.
Having a guarantor with assets mitigates this risk completely, and I have found people are much more reticent to miss their contractual obligations if they know that someone they care about, someone that put their trust in them, is likely to get a call and potentially a bill.
Mostly agree. Stupid regulations make things worse for landlords and tenants alike. Especially this renter's rights bill, this is simply going to make things more difficult for everyone in the long run. Landlords are like any other service and expecting them to act as cuddly toys is ridiculous. There are too many really stupid tenants out there who make it worse for the rest of us and then the news runs reports on the evil landlord, again everyone hurts when they do this because tenants can never be in the wrong for some reason.
On the flipside, vast losses and damages are very rare and such disasters are excessive to mitigate against when you already have a good tenant with cash up front. I'm not a tidal wave or a walking time bomb. It isn't that hard to separate a violent delinquent from a professional. Yet even waving my MSc in their face, LLs still don't bat an eye - guarantor absolutely necessary.
Your MSc isn't the flex you think it is. I've had PhD go behind on their rent at my ultimate expense. You're level of education just means you stayed in higher education for a longer time possibly racking up more debt.
I don't require a guarantor, but can be sympathetic to those that would, especially if they're using rent to go to a mortgage... Non paying rent would then affect their own credit.
I also have sympathy for yourself, there's no easy answer. If the renters reform bill gave easy and accelerated eviction processes for non payment, it may improve. But today s8/s21 can take 9-12 months.
Good luck OP in your search. Given your budget, I assume your in the northern part of the UK, where hopefully the pressure in housing is lower than say London.
The most understanding you have shown. Truth is everything you have written is from a you perspective previously but think about it for a moment from a LL perspective.
If you have the means then buy a property but don't bash LL for being risk adverse in these current times.
I once said to my tenants they could have a person they wanted to live with without a guarantor and failed referencing if they would guarantor the tenant themselves. The tenants didn't want to take the risk and strangely enough nor did I lol.
why would they take the risk? They arent the ones making money from it
The guarantor could not just afford it one day tho so what's the point of a guarantor. LL may say "because the tenant might lose their job" yes so can the guarantor so what's the point. If the tenant has the money just buy it
If the guarantor has a house you can put a charge on it
Quite a few insurance policies require a guarantor. Other landlords have had bad experiences due to giving people the benefit of the doubt. You can’t really know why they want one, but given it adds an extra step to getting a tenancy sorted out, odds are they aren’t doing it just to annoy people, nor is it their problem that you can’t access one.
How much is the rent?
Budget is £550-650pcm
With rents like that there really shouldn't be a problem all things equal.
You are massively above the affordability threshold.
Not being awkward, but you gone on a massive anti-landlord rant when the property you want to rent is clearly being let by a very fair landlord who's not making much of a profit.
A guarantor seems unreasonable, but that's half UK average rent when the cost of a new boiler, maintenance, and possible court fees ect are the same. Can you see the landlords perspective now?
Honestly. If you have a problem, you need to buy your own property.
I ask for one because I can. Demand for properties vastly exceeds supply. Potential tenants don’t get put forward for consideration unless they meet the criteria for insurance which includes a guarantor. I also want good credit and references.
It’s a business I will reduce the risk wherever I can. If things go wrong I have a far better chance of getting paid by a home owner guarantor than the tenant. They are far more worried about CCJ’s and charges against their home.
Are you really reducing risk by stipulating such demands? Good tenants exist and sometimes cannot provide guarantors. That doesn't mean you're reducing risk, you are preparing for eventualities that hold a negligible possibility. (Like that Simpsons episode where Homer builds a Bear Patrol.)
Furthermore, "guarantor" does not mean "guarantee". What happens if the guarantor cannot pay? I've worked in financial crime (complex fraud) and people go under all the time. Some people do extreme things to call themselves "homeowner".
Finally, would you take a 20-year old tenant with a guarantor but no experience of renting over a 40-year old experienced tenant with none? If that is your policy you'd be a fool. There are many nuances to cover to ensure a lease goes well, a good tenant knows a business relationship is fragile and needs respect (not drug parties every weekend into 7am)
I agree that you can’t insulate against all risk, but getting a guarantor massively reduces the chances that the tenant won’t pay up. It’s also an insurance requirement for my policies anyway.
If they can’t pay my insurance pays out and the insurance will chase after the tenant and guarantor. The likelihood of them both not having any ability to pay is unlikely (I do credit checks and affordability verification on both).
A lot of people have mentioned about a guarantor as an insurance requirement, didn't know about that so appreciate it.
Still, the likelihood of not getting paid whether or not you have a tenant with a guarantor exists and denying a prospective tenant with a perfect payment history but no guarantor is defeating the point
Not really, having ALL of the safeguards in place reduces the risk. As a home owner it’s assumed the guarantor will be easier to trace and worried about the potential loss of their own home. Remember we aren’t just talking about a couple of months rent. It takes a year to evict someone now and when the Renters Rights Bill comes in it will take longer. So add a years rent to potential damages (some landlords can have £20,000 damage) it can be a huge loss.
Many landlords are selling up before the act comes in. (Hence the worsening shortage). Those of us who are risking staying are doing our best to reduce potential losses.
If you can pay 12 months rent upfront for a £650 PCM rental. Why not buy a property?
Halifax offers a 5% deposit mortgage which will get you £150,000 property with a £7,500 deposit….
His income is right there in the post.....31x4.5 is not hitting 150k. "Why are you renting when you could scrape a high interest mortgage?"
The bank will lend 4.5. OP already has a decent deposit saved, At those rental rates they are obviously in a LCOL area.
Why would they do it? Because it makes financial sense long term and provides freedom from having to find a guarantor.
It's because renters are bad mostly and your circumstances can change, Ie lose your job then you will pass the headache onto your landlord. But i would accept 12 months upfront but I'm not a landlord.
Most renters are fine. As are most landlords
But the the bad ones (on both sides) lead to generalisations and affect it adversely for the rest.
If you think about it a bad tenant gets evicted and keeps bouncing from landlord to landlord so they leave a trail of evictions...
I’d be a lot more inclined to accept a tenant without a guarantor if rental payments and evictions were recorded on credit records like in the US.
Maybe this is a suggestion that needs to be made to credit agencies
Wow, talk about generalisations! Over 5 million households rent in the UK and 'most' of them are bad?
Where do you get this judgement from? Have you met them all?
Have you met 5 million or generalising?
I am not claiming anything in my post so that is irrelevant. You are in yours and I asked for your proof.
As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Oh now you aren't claiming anything. You just accused me of generalising. Now you don't like it when I switch the roles. I don't need to prove anything. I didn't generalise, you did. You prove it, then I will prove whatever you accused me of that got you triggered.
Funny how you keep asking me to prove my point, yet will not back up your own original statement. You do that and we can talk about what a generalisation is and whether either claim meets the criteria.
Or, on the other hand, I can stop wasting my time with you, which is the option I'll choose. Bye.
The op question is why guarantor is needed and I answered, if you disagree. Make your own statement always uneducated arguing over semantics.
You literally said "renters are bad mostly".... That was your generalisation...
So ? You think if they were good landlords would need guarantor?
Why do you think the good/badness of the landlord is what determines the need for a guarantor?
What do you think a guarantor is for?
If you answer with a question then you need to find the answers to your question. Google is your friend.
Google can't tell me how you came to your opinion.
I could just make a load of assumptions, but I'd rather actually ask you to make sure I understand your point.
Rental insurance is expensive and very hard to get paid out on - there are numerous get-outs for insurers to avoid paying. For that reason, personally I’ve never even bothered with it. But to answer your question, probably a guarantor is going to be one of the numerous prerequisites of having a policy.
The other question is, you may be earning £31K, but how much rent do you anticipate paying? The need for a guarantor is normally usually related to the applicant’s ability to pay, measured as rent as a proportion of income, and if it doesn’t exceed a certain level, most agents will be demanding a guarantor.
The final answer, I suppose, is regretfully ‘because they can’. It’s a seller’s market at the moment so they can pick and choose; so if they are able to stipulate ‘guarantor’ that means reducing their risk of getting a non-paying tenant.
Rents here are easily affordable for my salary (which doesn't include performance bonuses). So they are well within reach. But demanding a guarantor isn't just excessive, it's demeaning. Suggests that tenants are crooks who can't honour their contracts. Where else are providers of a service allowed to demand "guarantees" like this.
Where is this?
All due respect, but the service provided by landlords is pretty unusual compared to most: they are handing over to a complete stranger an asset likely worth a 6-figure sum. I think it’s not unreasonable to expect that they are going to want to do all they can to protect themselves.
It’s commonplace in business supply; a ltd co in good financial standing will still require personal guarantees for credit accounts. Why? Because, much like a tenant with no assets, if the company doesn’t pay there’s very little recourse.
But you’re partially correct imho; there are queues of tenants for properties in desirable areas. Many are fine people and good tenants; some of those have “people” who believe that also and are happy to provide a guarantee to that effect. You are clearly in the same position, but either unwilling or unable to provide such a guarantee, and you’re therefore unlikely to get such a property if others are equally qualified and willing to provide a guarantor.
I note your budget of £5-600pcm; so this is not going to be a premium property or an affluent area; consider the type of tenant prevalent in such properties; it may help you understand the concerns of the landlords.
I need to know for someone like me who does not have a guarantor, what my options would be because I'd be stuck trying to rent
Find a landlord that doesn’t want a guarantor or look for a house share are basically your options.
Find a landlord who doesn't want a guarantor
Unfortunately your going to find this harder and harder to find with the new rules coming in. More and more LL will ask for them. Also I know you said you offered rent upfront but going forward (when the new rules come in) this won't be allowed. It's silly but that's what the government has decided.
You want to pay for the insurance in your rent? If so then offer a higher rent in lieu of a guarantor.
Many insurers require a guarantor, the ones that don’t are more expensive. You paying?
Tried it, doesn't work either. You still demand homeowners with swiss bank accounts and connections to the royal family
Bummer, either way. Plenty of good reasons to need a guarantor. What if you lose your job?
If it’s possible to get tenants who have one there’s no reason to not require one.
Haha this is so silly by this point. Are you saying I can't hold down my job? What if the landlord can't hold down their job? (My previous two weren't)
Or maybe you're not taking it far enough. What if I turn out to be a terrorist? What if I am a Russian spy? Or a vampire? No reason not to do those checks too.
We are now required to do sanction checks, so yeah we do actually have to check to see if you’re a terrorist or restricted person. Another thing the government outsourced to us.
You seem to fail to understand that being a landlord comes with the risk that you’ll be stuck with a tenant who can’t pay their rent for whatever reason but they’ll be allowed to stay in the property for months before an eviction.
We have a market where clearly enough people can get guarantors that landlords feel able to advertise with that requirement. This is just free market dynamics.
Being mad at landlords is the definition of hating the player instead of the game. Blame the governments who since Thatcher have flogged council housing at a loss to subside home ownership and turned the rental sector into an almost entirely privatised one.
Also, nobody is saying you can’t hold down a job. Stop taking it so personally and being so defensive. Anyone is capable of getting made redundant or becoming unable to work. You’re projecting here.
Fine but you also understand I am serious about paying your rent and all bills on time, have plenty of documentation to prove so, good job, savings, credit, and yet you still demand guarantees as if trusting a guarantor isn't an additional risk in itself.
I'm being vengefully evicted at the moment (mould; mushrooms and roots growing out the walls; noise pollution) and not a thing the council or solicitors will do about it. Landlords want all the cards and now you have, you don't know how to play them.
There is no basis for guarantees in a "free market". A free market is the antithesis of a planned economy. A planned economy makes assumptions on guarantees. As the communists learned, putting guarantees on the future was not a great decision.
You simply have too much power as landlords to demand guarantees. I get you want to be paid. But when we can offer the best history in the world, large payments upfront, and it's still not enough, then it is never enough because no one is capable of telling the future.
For every good tenant there are bad tenants. For every good landlord there are bad landlords.
At the moment there is much more demand than supply, so landlords can take the least riskiest tenants. Someone passing affordability is good, someone passing affordability with a guarantor is better.
With the current renters reforms going through parliament, the difficulty in removing a tenant is going to get harder and take longer. If a tenant stops paying then it can already take half a year to evict, with this process set to get even harder i can understand why a landlord would want the most financially secure option.
If you are renting as a single person then there is no backup for the landlord so asking for a guarantor makes sense. In someways, renting a larger place as a couple (/with a friend) also is more secure for the landlord as there are 2 people to chase for the rent.
Regarding the comment of paying 12 months upfront, this doesn’t give any comfort to the landlord. If there are questions on affordability, then from month 13 there are risks….see my previous paragraph on how hard it is to evict a tenant.
So they have someone else to chase if you don’t pay, and the insurance gets away with not paying out
Because landlords aren't real people, they're companies. They can't use their best judgement to weigh a person up based on their merits/downfalls, they may only take on tenants if computer says "Yes"
Apparently the previous tenant didn't pay for ages and had to be evicted which caused them to take an overly cautious approach on my part.
A guarantor is just another layer of protection. You know who isn't going to easily get a guarantor? Anyone who is known to friends and family as someone likely to skip rent.
You know who is more likelg to not struggle getting one? Someone who is trusted by their friends and family as the kind of person who won't get them in trouble.
Will it exclude perfectly good candidates? Absolutely. Blame the rent skippers for ruining for you.
I don’t ask for a guarantor but I can see why some might. Also due to the new rules being put in place by Labour we cannot take any rent in advance any more.
The main reason a lot might ask for a guarantor is simply that they can. There is so much demand for property and it is out stripping the supply, meaning landlords can add as much security for them selves and it will still always rent out. Added to this there is now far more risk with the up coming renters rights bill.
I agree the playing field definitely should be levelled and there definitely needs to be much more security for tenants but I believe maybe Labour have gone a little too far and spooked a lot of landlords who maybe have had bad experiences or maybe they’re just bad people?
A landlord doesn’t know you from the next person, yes the next person may be a crap tenant, but if they ah passed all the same checks as you, but can also provide a guarantor, then it will be them they go with. Landlords can only do so many checks, after that it’s a case of fingers crossed they actually end up been ok, and just in case they aren’t they need as much defence as possible to avoid housing somebody for free for 12+ months. No landlord is ever knowingly letting a crap tenant in, and a good one go.
Not true: Landlords consciously and willingly take on risky, crappy tenants all the time. For instance the previous guy here was a bank robber, fraudster, and woman batterer. This was published in the local paper. Yet they happily took them on. Did they pay the rent? Of course they didn't. Did they abscond and end up back in prison? Yes they did.
The problem here is that Landlords need to stop focusing on instant cash and "verification" but more about serious, stable and long-term residents. Right now I can post 15 years of solid rent and bill paying. You're here to make money, I'm serious. Yet you're still stuck in the mud because.. guarantees?
I've never seen anything like this. Not that social justice crap but hard business. Life isn't about being guaranteed things. We always take risks when we trade. If you want life without risks why are you even bothering doing business?
If a tenant stops paying rent your only option is to take them to court for a judgement. If a person has no money or assets the LL can't collect the debt so having a home owner guarantor gives you somebody to sue with a far better chance you will eventually get the money owed.
You may be the best tenant in the world but on paper you will still seem more risky than someone who has a guarantor.
The big problem is it can take up to 2 years to evict and cost thousands so LL are becoming super risk adverse and it's only getting worse.
Rights are disproportionately moving totally in the tenants favour and LL feel forced to mitigate their exposure risk as much as humanly possible.
If you're super risk adverse why take on super risky tenants in the first place ??
It's not difficult to work out the good from the bullshit. I can talk about my career, my education, my history of endless good billpaying, but the insistence on a guarantor could possibly mean you prefer a fresh graduate barely rented before. No guarantee you'll get your money back if they trash the place either.
You talk about rights being on the side of the tenant that is true, but there are really shitty landlords and the good bunch of us are stuck in the middle. Guarantees are no better than regulations. If you can't work out what a good tenant is by using your brain you are just doing yourself.
Bad people don't come with a sign over their head and you have been rude to several people whom have answered your question.
You complaining isn't going to resolve your issues and I wouldn't rent to you by your attitude you have displayed in this thread alone even if you did offer to give 12 months upfront.
Maybe reread what LL have said here and understand it might not be fair but it is reality and it's caused totally by eviction process being so long coupled with eviction costs in the thousands. Btw you can pay for company to act as a guarantor and you have indicated you have savings so is a possibility for you.
Other than that, why ask a question if your closed off to the answer. It might not be the answer you are looking for but trying to argue with everybody isn't going to change jack shit I'm afraid.
We have always had a policy, two reference-able incomes or one and a guarantor. This policy has always served us very well indeed. If you ask why we want a guarantor - look at how hard it is to remove non-paying tenants out, the courts are a joke! The system is so poor, good tenants pay the price.
Would not want to be a landlord going through the courts against a squatter that sounds like a nightmare. Our system is too welfare-focused and socialised. If a tenant wants to treat their accommodation like a toy they ought to go through social housing.
Maybe this guarantee stuff originated from tenants. They expect a guarantee to be housed. No, you pay your rent like everyone else. Or you can go for a council flat your choice.
Uncertainty over the renters reform bill. If a tenant stops paying I've got to wait three months before I can even start a lengthy eviction process. There's plenty of tenant enquiries so simply not worth the risk of not taking a guarantor if another prospective tenant has one.
That bill hurts tenants and landlords alike. Finer amendments on existing S8 and S21 regulations should have been implemented. Doing a blanket ban is stupid for good landlords.
I agree, I'm not against the abolition of S21 per se but it's been a good fallback for all of the discretionary S8 grounds.
If the renters reform bill made provisions for speedy evictions for breaking the tenancy agreement I'd be all for it but in the meantime that's not the case and risk has to be mitigated where possible.
Have a friend in a letting agents and they say they are still having to go to the guarantor’s to ask for rent arrears in roughly 10% of tenancies.
There are good and bad people in all walks of life and admittedly it’s not fair on tenants that are decent people and don’t have a guarantor, but if you’ve got the choice of a tenant with a home owner guarantor and one without who are they going to chose .
Really , the government should be supplying homes to people who can’t get a PR home , but I guess that’s gone out the window .
The best renter in the world could still lose their job and be suddenly unable to pay rent.
So could the guarantor
Yer but generally a LL will want a property-owning one who fears the CCJ and has assets.
but not likely both at the same time, no ?
But the guarantor has to be a home owner, so even if they have no income, the claim can be against the house.
Rental market is crazy right now, well it has been for a while, but if a landlord has 5 people applying to rent the property with a guarantor and 1 person who doesn’t, those other 5 people are always going to be considered over the 1 that doesn’t. It’s really as simple as that. The last 2 tenants I’ve had were high earners (over £100k) and they both offered guarantors.
[deleted]
..I've relocated several times and never had a problem, maybe it is your self-employment status and declared earnings?
It sounds like more and more landlords are exiting the market therefore those remaining can be increasingly picky.
Because circumstances can change in an instance and all them years of good credit can mean nothing. Landlords need to protect themselves from that.
Because whilst you might pay your rent, how does your landlord know?
General public opinion, crap tenants and the upcoming change in laws have made loads of people sell up as landlords. This means that it's harder than ever to find a nice house to rent, and landlords have to be extra careful to make sure they don't get shafted.
If successive governments hadn't made being a landlord a less and less attractive option then there would be way more houses to rent, more competition, cheaper rent and the opportunity to rent without the need for a guarantor.
As it stands, despite being a good tenant, you are losing out because of shitty tenants and shitty government policies.
If your single and loose your job who’s going to pay?
>Why not just take out insurance instead
Insurance policies insist on having a guarantor, or the cover is void.
You can't say 'why not just take out insurance', AND 'why won't you let me rent from you even though I don't have a guarantor' when not being able to provide a guarantor prevents an insurance policy from being valid.
>taking it out on perfectly fine tenants who have never missed the rent once in their life?
Whether you like it or not, the properties are rented out as an investment. Given the choice (and there is PLENTY of choice of potential tenant) between a tenant who has never missed a payment and CAN provide a guarantor Vs a tenant who has never missed a payment and CANNOT provide a guarantor, the preference will always be the one who can provide a guarantor.
Speaking as a tenant, my lease is also a condition of trust. Into my time, my wellbeing, and general autonomy. Where's my guarantee you won't construct a blaring loud commercial gymnasium underneath my pillow? (They did)
If you choose guarantor holders over those that cannot, you aren't making things easier for yourself - you're just adding to the mix. Concentrate on good and reliable tenants, not sky high expectations where it all ends in tears.
>Where's my guarantee you won't construct a blaring loud commercial gymnasium underneath my pillow?
If you want that guarantee, you're more than welcome to try to negotiate it into the contract with any potential landlord. If they control the property below you and want you as a tenant, they may well be willing to consider committing to refraining from particular uses. If they don't own the adjacent properties, there's nothing they can do though. It's something to consider when choosing the property you want to rent.
>you aren't making things easier for yourself - you're just adding to the mix
You seem to be working on a false belief that there's a shortage of tenants, and landlords are choosing to take a risk on people who have a poor credit history, low income, have pets and kids, but can provide a guarantor. That's not what's happening.
There's plenty of interest from potential tenants who are single, have no pets, have no kids, don't smoke, make £31k or more, have a great credit score and history, are in credit with their bills, have no CCJs or criminal record, have rented for many years, have a deposit and reference and rent ready AND have a guarantor.
Given the choice, the easier option is the tenant with the guarantor. It's just far less risk.
From a landlord's perspective it's the choice between someone saying "trust me, I've got enough money. I've always repaid anyone I owe money to on time" and someone else saying "trust me, I've got enough money. I've always repaid anyone I owe money to on time, and even this family member/very close friend trusts me to keep on top of my bills to the extent that they've offered to cover anything that's outstanding if I do happen to fall on hard times and get behind".
It's not a case of waiting for someone who can make that second statement, in most cases there's a queue of people in that position already available so why would they rent to someone who doesn't also have the friend/family member to vouch for them?
RentGuarantor Limited acts as a professional guarantor for tenants.
Just in case it helps.
Also post RRB
landlords will be prohibited from requiring a guarantor if:
The tenant has already paid a tenancy deposit or one month's rent in advance.
The tenant's income is assessed and deemed sufficient to cover the rent
We own a property ourselves that we rent out to my sister-in-law, we don’t live there because it’s just too small for us
The estate agents made us our own guarantor which was weird
Partially, because insurance requires it. Also partially because it's a landlords market. There are people lining up for viewings. Given the steep increase in rates that has been going on for the past few years, why wouldn't LL insist on the additional safety net of a guarantor .
The rental landscape has been changing in recent years, government attempts to protect renters means increased risk for landlords. This is a consequence of that.
Because you aint on the benefits where its easy money and can charge more
Yep, had a great one. Lived in a rented house for 18months, everything great both sides when left there. Same landlord owned a lot of properties in same city so when I needed somewhere a few years later I emailed and he held a place for me! Lived there 5 years and wanted to move to one of this other properties (garden, bigger, nicer) - at this point, with 7 years perfect rent history with the exact same landlord the “agent” said a guarantor was mandatory. Our joint salary was over £100k gross for a £1250/m rent.
Insurance requires it and my market is competitive enough I have no issue finding one so why not
Landlord here. I don’t require a guarantor, but I do always ask if a prospective tenant has one — it’s simply an added layer of security. Most people understand that.
That said, if someone responds to the question by getting defensive or aggressively questioning why I’m asking, that’s usually a red flag for me. I’m happy to have a reasonable conversation, but a confrontational attitude right out of the gate tends to signal future issues.
I was looking at a house in Yorkshire yesterday, it said minimum income of £34,000 required. If I rented this on my own on a 40 hour week, I would need to be paid £16 odd per hour, as a bus driver I don't even hit £14 per hour 🙄
That's because it's a pile of shit system. We need to tear it up and start again.
Yeah I hate it, I earn good money but my only family member is an old lady on a tiny pension, who exactly am I supposed to conjure up as a guarantor?
I don't really get the whole "oooh risk adverse it's just the way of the world" argument, like yes the law allows you to massively derisk using an investment as a major income source.... Cool you can legally do it, I can still think it's cowardly and scummy
Blame the idiots who meddled to make tenants life "easier" and the courts who are entirely unfit for purpose. Whilst a guarantor does not guarantee no problems, it does mean there is someone to chase for money should there be problems.
We are in a situation where many LL would rather have an empty property than a bad tenant.
It would seem unusual for a £600 rent to require a guarantor on a salary of £31k. Is there something else, have you checked all 3 credit referencing agencies ? Just on the off chance there is something showing that you do not know about.
Are your references good? Can the LL be contacted? this is really important, a bit of paper or email is not much use to anyone.
A) 31k (depending on the area) is not a huge salary, there will be applicants earning more and B) find a guarantor or look for a different place that doesn’t need one. It is what it is
Because you might decide not to pay, irrespective of your financial situation.
It's quite common, parents are often asked to act as guarantors for students living in a rented property. I think the idea is that if a tenant causes serious damage then leaves, to the extent that the deposit won't cover the cost of repairs, then the guarantor can be pursued for the repair costs.
You sometimes find that similar properties are offered for rent at different prices, with the rent being cheaper if a guarantor is provided. Usually, the guarantor has to be a property owner and/or in regular employment.