Updating post from Reddit.
There will either be some exceptions or the guarantor service market will expand
So more costs for those people who can't get a UK guarantor. Lovely.
Yup, international students are essentially cashcows at every turn in this country
Well, they don't vote, so why should politicians give a crap?
They keep our universities funded. That's one reason we need them
We have more universities than we need. We can afford to lose a few foreign students and a few shit universities
International student don’t do shot university FYI. People are paying double or triple for shot university?
International students are actually pretty much entirely funding our good universities.
When you look at the fees they pay, remember that if it wasn't for caps they would be charging British people that much too.
The good ones, maybe, but I'm talking about the shit ones. Bolton, Huddersfield, Southampton Solent and the rest. Not to mention the immigration scam colleges
And why do you think we can ‘afford to lose’ them? Do the people that go there not deserve to go to uni?
Uni fees have tripled in 14 years for domestic citizens....how much do you think international students pay? Less....its more.
The uk economy literally relies on foreign students....its why net migration numbers are so high. They are the lions share of the number.
Which populist, 2 brain cell, soundbite politicians are using to stoke up a voter base of hate.
Migration numbers where out yesterday....you can source details there.
Why have you picked 14 years? They were £1k not £9k per year 19 years ago. That's even more dramatic. By the way, the nation doesn't rely on foreign students. They're not all paying top whack, they're not paying tax here to any meaningful extent, they're often going to shit places not the more lucrative prestigious places, and they're often lying by coming here as "students" and never leaving or even attending their courses
We do, politcians don't care.
The high quality universities get most of their funding from elsewhere, and the rest are just dragging down the overall quality of higher education.
Other issues with relying on foreign students include that the money isn't guaranteed - several incidents of them "proving" they have the funds to pay for their studies only for it turn out a group of students from abroad pooled their money and moved it back account to bank account to scam their way into the country; or another common issue is either being pregnant on arrival or shortly after, staying on the course till they give birth, and then dropping off the course and claiming benefits as their child is a British citizen now.
But the UK doesn't have birthright citizenship, so their kid wouldn't be a citizen
No, however, you're highly unlikely to be deported when you are born here, especially as an infant, and deporting the mother of an infant is also highly unlikely, so citizenship is a matter of time and the very generous state provides. Anyone who works in a former polytechnic university like those in the midlands or north east can likely rattle off a good number of cases like this. A family member of mine works at one, and I've previously worked admissions at one, and you can see a class drop by a quarter or even a third from this in the first year easily.
End of the day, depending on foreign students to keep open a university just highlights how undesirable that university is to have in operation. They shouldn't be the majority of the student body, as you see with a good number of courses at some universities.
Because if we exploit them too much then they will go elsewhere and their high skillset won't improve our economy.
And cause further funding issues at universities.
without international students UK universities will collapse, unless government decides to quickly hike the overall cost of uni but then that'll cause way too much trouble down the road.
Ala 2010 when the tier 2 post study work visa was initially revoked and uni fees also tripled.
With how expensive unis have become now for European students, I think those funding issues are worse than ever, honestly. I came here right before Brexit and paid like £10 grand a year, which was steep, but hey, somewhat doable. Now it's what? Close to £30k? I honestly don't see a way to justify those costs.
Ironically student immigration has doubled since 2020's 210,000 to 484,000 in 2022. There was a slight slump when post study work visa was a abolished, but not nearly as bad as I thought.
Mainly students from China/Far East with lots of money
😂 high skillset half of them are very low on the skillset spectrum. It's all new Chinese money paying for degrees they are not clever enough to get at home.
High skill set? Have you been to university recently?
Yeah, but that doesn't affect politicians in the slightest. No one looks that far ahead, they just need to be reelected in 4 years and every messup from the past wasn't them anyways.
I here they are already looking further afield now
Yes we do vote if you’re from the commonwealth country like India and Nigeria and the rest of the
If you have residency, such as ILR or Settled Status.
Settled status does not grant the right to vote.
Neither does ILR, but we're talking in the context of Commonwealth citizens.
If you're a Commonwealth citizen, you can only vote in UK's election if you have residency, such as Indefinite Leave to Remain or Settled Status.
That’s not correct in this context. Commonwealth citizens can vote, as long as the place they want to register to vote at is their permanent residence (as in, they don’t spend more time living at another UK address) and they are there legally, which is the case for most students. Settled status only vaguely plays a role for EU citizens, as with the most recent EU review only those who have been in the UK for more than 4 years or are citizens of Poland, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg or Denmark can still vote as they have before. Most of the time, these people then also have settled status, but it is not a requirement for continued voting rights.
You can’t vote in general elections with settled or pre settled eu status, you need to be a citizen. You can vote in local elections but not general elections unfortunately.
No that’s not right. I was able to vote on 4 July and I’m a commonwealth citizen on a student visa.
oh.
who did you vote for?
Do you know how expensive and long it is to get ILR? I got citizenship in 2018 and it cost me more than 3 grand with 5+ years in qualifying immigration status; cost has probably nearly doubled by now.
These international students are almost certainly not coming over with ILR already in place.
Ones from the commonwealth do
International students can’t vote unless they’re from a select number of commonwealth countries. I didn’t know this til after the deadline to register to vote 💀💀
Well, either way, they're not going to move the needle.
Commonwealth intl students can vote in local elections
If they can afford to study abroad they're rich, why not milk them?
Not saying I agree with this, but given that immigration is arguably the #1 hot topic and students accounts for a 295,000 of those numbers, it's perhaps not surprising that 'potentially having a negative impact on international student numbers' isn't much of a hurdle to any proposals these days.
Except that people don't have an issue with people who migrate to study or for high added value jobs. People don't like the droves of migrants that barely speak the language and can't integrate or work and are eventually forced into crime or squalor.
They could be speaking Chinese for all I know, all I care is if they pay the rent.
I will disagree and say that many people hold the opposite of this opinion.
Edit: not that I necessarily agree, personally as long as migrants are fit and healthy and fill in labour force gaps, I think both forms are welcome.
Show me one person who claims to dislike any foreigner here no matter how they act.
I meant the opposite of your statement regarding preferring high wage immigrants and not working class immigrants.
I never said anything about working class immigrants though.
Sorry, I don’t ascribe to the belief that immigrants are either high-wage or barely able to speak the language or integrate. I think working class immigrants are greater in number than this second group you’ve decided are the only other type of immigrant.
No one has made the claim that migrants come in only those two options. That was all an invention of your racist mind.
>Except that people don't have an issue with people who migrate to study or for high added value jobs.
That's a bold statement and likely one that comes from one's own feelings on the matter - I might add, I share those feelings - sadly though, there are plenty of people that don't care what immigrants are here for, they just don't want them.
Also being a student/high added value worker whilst barely being able to speak the language and not integrating, are not mutually exclusive.
It's not a bold statement at all, it is what it is. There's like five people in all of Britain who dislike foreigners simply for being foreigners. Unless you're one of them, in which case there might be six.
That’s some weapons grade naivety you’ve got there.
Gonna need some proof for that chief.
Simply see your previous comment.
genuine query, is there a specific reason as to why international guarantors are not allowed? like if landlords really want to keep their international renters, why not lobby for international guarantors?
Well, you can't really use UK courts to chase someone who's left the country. If someone has wealth in the UK and they don't pay you, you can definitely go to court.
that makes sense, thanks for explaining!
No worries! :)
Well that makes sense, red tape is passed to the consumer …
Always, but in this case, what you're doing is singling out specific consumers so that they have added costs unfairly.
Tell that to the people who add the red tape …
I'm already taking guarantors on every property since the threat of the renters reform bill.
Sometimes the upfront payment term is the difference between me accepting a tenancy and declining it. It's ultimately another decision by the labour government which tightens the availability of rental properties.
A lot of companies in Scotland anyway don’t accept guarantor services, does England?
I've just started renting a place in order to sell the place I own chain free. The letting agent needed a reference from my last landlord, even though I've been living in my own house for 2.5 years. They had real trouble tracking down my old landlord and I offered 6 months rent in the event that they couldn't find him. I outright refuse to countenance asking somebody to be my guarantor when I'm pushing 40 and a homeowner, and my parents are pensioners. That would be ridiculous.
I recently had a lodger who couldn’t rent through any agency for lack of a landlord reference. He had sold his house here, and was looking to rent in this city for 1-2 years before moving back to his roots in Scotland where he has now bought a lovely country manor in. He is a consultant doctor as well, so not a 25 year old with no credit history. Very odd that he couldn’t rent.
It is the most frustrating thing. It was a real 'computer says no' situation, as the letting agent used a third party software system for referencing and they needed all boxes checked before issuing the contract. I strongly suspect that the eventual email they affixed as my 'landlord reference' was actually an email bounce back saying that this mailbox isn't monitored and replies will take a long time. As that's the only response I got myself from the landlord, but suddenly they were happy to proceed. I think if I get into a situation like this again in future I will have to rent through Airbnb for a month or so, just so I have somebody to list as a landlord reference for a longer term rental afterwards.
Those apps need to be banned. You can't get past them. I ended up paying 12 months rent up front for my son because I didn't earn enough to be his guarantor as per the questions on the app. Er, what about this money in the bloody bank I can just literally give you? It was a bloody nightmare.
It happens when people forget that they're doing deals with people and can choose to make a deal directly with the person no matter what the stupid rules say about shit. All in all, if you're going to make a deal with someone make a deal keep to it and that's that, yeah ofc there's the obv what ifs but my point is it's legislation that's getting in the way of just being able to get a roof over your head because the rules are more about the uber rich and their games rather then the average person. I've rented for and from people who have properties (landlords) on the mere premis of hey I need the address for this this and this Ill get you x amount on this date at this time and if not then I'll bounce, i won't fuck you over if you don't fuck me over, if need be let's draw up a contract and talk about it they've been like ok cool. No credit check no garuntaur or any pony shiz like it
When I needed a guarantor last year the agency wanted the guarantor to have a £40k salary. Not sure if that's normal, I just ended up paying 6 months upfront
There’ll be a huge rise in homelessness, tenants with bad credit, low incomes and no guarantors will be hugely stuffed.
The potential ban is for *requiring* multiple calender months rent upfront
It mentions nothing about tennants *offering* 3-6-9 etc months + deposit.
Room temprature IQ landlords in their subreddit.
The press briefing has a loophole you could drive a bus through, chill out ya crafty clever businessmen you.
>It mentions nothing about tennants offering 3-6-9 etc months + deposit.
>Room temprature IQ landlords in their subreddit.
>The press briefing has a loophole you could drive a bus through, chill out ya crafty clever businessmen you.
As you note, this is a press briefing. If the actual law/regulation doesn't close a hugely obvious loophole that makes the entire law completely pointless then I'd be quite surprised.
Overseas students are brilliant cash cows and all-round great tenants to have. They'll have no issue paying for the terms stay upfront
finally!! this seems largely to be about stopping predatory landlords from demanding unreasonable and unfeasible amounts of rent, but there's no mention in this 5-sentence report of renters being banned from offering large amounts upfront… literally never met a landlord who didn't think the world revolved around their passive income.
My thoughts exactly.
Love this comment 😂
Why would it affect homelessness? People that this affects (people that would pay multiple months rent up front) aren't likely to be at risk of being homeless.
Because landlords just won't rent to people on very low incomes if they can't find a suitable guarantor
On very low incomes they are unlikely to have multiple months of rent money sitting about anyway.
Exactly, all this would do is create a fairer rental market as more people could compete for rents within their means.
I paid just over 10k for 6 months rent and deposit for a 3 bed house. I was a single mum with 2 kids starting their gcses so used all my inheritance to finally get a house. It was one of the most depressing things I have ever done and there is no way i could pull that off again. Tho it did secure us a decent home to live in.
Part of me sees this as a good thing, the other side tells me nope, this isn't gonna help as what will happen to people that don't have gaurantors. I don't and I'm self employed so no landlord will touch me now so I'm moving into a van.
The real solution would be an expedite-quick process against tenants arrears. If tenants could be evicted in less than 30 days. Then guarantors would not be neccesary.
But if the process is going to take 1 year, landlords need to offset that risk. Specially if you remove the S21.
If you ban paying more than one month in advance and guarantors, then only people with a low risk profile would be eligible to rent. As simple as that.
Exactly this. Landlords don’t request 12 months rent in advance from students because they are greedy. Who in their right mind would give their property away to someone who is unemployed with no guarantee that next month’s rent will come.
Precisely - someone unemployed who can up and leave the country and be effectively impossible to pursue
Yep I'm with you on this. I work for a landlord and he has had 2 bad tenants this year and lost a lot of money, which means in turn I don't get as much work.
I've been served a section 21 before and it took 8 months for them to set a court date to get me out. I had nowhere to go and no help from the council till I was officially out and then was moved to a bnb with a lot of horrible people. I always paid rent on time and was a decent Tennant but single mums have a bad rep (I understand why) so finding a home for us after 2010 was impossible, even with amazing references.
What will happen to all those that are high risk? There is no social housing and even though I'm working full time and kids are at uni I've struggled to find a place to rent that I can afford. Not all of us can live in vans, especially those with kids and hostels and b&bs are horrible places for children.
Exactly. I wish I could accept good people who are higher risk but I could never do that because if they ever stop paying, getting them out will take a year or more.
But voters generally believe that living rent free while being protected from eviction for a year is a human right so it’ll never be changed and thus the renting process can never be simplified.
No, we believe having shelter is a human right.
I too agree that the process of waiting for the bailiffs to arrive before you leave is unfair on both parties. But this is what the local authority tell people as standard. Even if you are able pay and willing to rent a suitable property, and if you leave the possibility of you and, possibly children without a home, so the choice becomes simple.
>No, we believe having shelter is a human right.
Evictions should be illegal then, non-paying tenants should be allowed to live there forever because shelter is a human right.
While you’re at it, stealing food from shops needs to be legal because food is a human right.
Love that extreme analogy, was merely saying that people in a very desperate situation are told by the local authorities, an extension of government, to do this or they get no help.
Fuck I hate this sub. Ban me mods.
Cunts
Goodbye people moving from abroad to relocate who haven’t started work yet, goodbye foreign students with no sponsorship, goodbye self employed people who haven’t got a guarantor or done a tax return yet etc etc.
Government are idiots, some people want to pay upfront and will just struggle to find anywhere to live if it’s banned.
Workaround: make them hire a guarantor service. They would pay the equivalent of 3-6 months of rent in "service fees".
Then when you have tenants arrears, the guarantor service will cover the rent for these 3-6 months.
So a worse system for tenants. At least when you pay your rent upfront, you always get your money worth. That's not the case for "service fees".
Where does it say it's going to be banned? It says that landlords can't ask for it or demand it, but that doesn't mean a tenant couldn't offer the landlord x amount upfront if there are queries about their financial security. I'm not saying I have enormous trust in this government, but I also don't think they're doing this in bad faith, because UK Landlords have had free reign for too long and instead of being put off by the things that might go wrong, governments are supposed focus on the things that need fixing while mitigating collateral effects.
So... Basically the landlord would imply that some months of rent should be paid upfront without saying it.
If the tenant understands the hint. Then good, otherwise move to other tenant.
I struggle to see how this will improve the rental system.
Seems an odd dance to have to dance to get the result we have now
if there were only a single landlord in the whole country that would make sense, but you think that every single landlord is going to try and worm their way around these rules, and that tenants are going to be shunted from crook to crook? if that is the case then clearly the landlord community is rotted through and needs to be dealt with more harshly. either way, landlords have always been crooks - i had one who ignored an extreme mould problem entirely, except for trying to slip a clause into a revised tenancy stating that we weren't allowed to do laundry at the property to avoid condensation. i had another who promised a renovated kitchen and then charged full rent for a flat with a totally bare kitchen for six months. another tried to up rent twice in the same year despite the property literally falling apart. landlords have had free reign for years - if this makes their ecosystem a little harder to work around then maybe it'll encourage the shitty ones to stop exploiting renters, and it will give renters more confidence to stand up for their rights.
In case of rent arrears, the landlord could lose around £8,000-£12,000. So landlords have a strong incentive to offset/cover this risk.
The optimal solution would be to remove this risk entirely (quick/express evictions). If there is no risk, then you don't need to offset/cover anything. It's better for everyone.
Express evictions don't benefit the person being evicted. Not in the slightest.
It benefits honest tenants and landlords like I said.
You literally said "everyone" but that's just nitpicking.
The fact is it's in the governments best interests to not let evictions take place in a matter of days at the moment. It's much better for them to stay put and potentially find another property than to have them on the street because the second that's a possibility the house will get smashed beyond repair.
That situation sometimes happens when they've got things to lose, if you and your family are facing imminent homelessness they won't have a care in the world.
Basically, instead of councils paying for a shelter. The landlord should "pay" for their shelter instead.
Obviously landlords are not interested. They are a business, not a charity. And therefore they'll take measures to prevent/reduce this cost. It's completely logical and rational.
Pass of the cost of these measures are passed to the tenants in a direct/indirect way. So yeah, honest tenants are paying this political decision too.
It's absolutely logical that landlords don't wanna pay for the mistakes of bad tenants.
But the government and the council and the general population would much rather it be your problem and financial burden than theirs. So this is how it goes.
It's 2 month's notice before someone in arrears can be evicted, with 14 days notice from the tenant being informed of their eviction, right? How does 10 weeks rack up for £8,000-£12,000 for the vast majority of properties? Genuinely curious - inspections? Letting agency fee? Admin fees? The deposit exists to cover repairs where they're the fault of the tenant (although in most cases the landlord tries to keep the deposit regardless). I appreciate that the landlord then has to find new tenants, but from experience, if a property has reasonable rent, is in good condition, and the tenancy agreement isn't demented, there is no shortage of renters keen to hop on board asap.
It's also passive income/investment of a kind - I get that it would suck to have a tenant come on board only to get into arrears and leave the landlord with council tax/utilities to cover without rent payment, but if that's not affordable for landlords then they need to make an active income and sell their property. Basically, it's a privilege to own a home for yourself and a home (or homes) to make money off of, it drives up prices so that for a lot of people needing a landlord is a self-justifying and self-perpetuating endeavour, and given that every year rent goes up while the service the tenant receives stays exactly the same, I'm having a hard time sympathising with landlords having a monopoly on how the market works when it's more important to have a home to live in than a home to make money off.
Basically, on either side of this dividing line, there is enormous capacity for either side to get screwed over, but in real life, most landlords make money off of tenants (otherwise they wouldn't do it) and millions of tenants are struggling to get by. The system has to reflect the social reality, not a landlord's anxieties about being fully paid up in case something goes wrong.
>It's 2 month's notice before someone in arrears can be evicted, with 14 days notice from the tenant being informed of their eviction, right? How does 10 weeks rack up for £8,000-£12,000 for the vast majority of properties? Genuinely curious - inspections? Letting agency fee? Admin fees?
First, with the new law is going to be 3 months.
Two, in order to enforce the eviction. You need to go to the courts + baliffs. That delay the process up to 12-18 months (depends on your local court).
So 12 months of unpaid rent + court fees + solicitor... So yes, I'm being conservative by saying that it's only £8,000 in costs.
>The deposit exists to cover repairs where they're the fault of the tenant
The deposit is capped to 5 weeks. Which it's not enough to cover 12-18 months of unpaid rent.
>It's also passive income/investment of a kind - I get that it would suck to have a tenant come on board only to get into arrears and leave the landlord with council tax/utilities to cover without rent payment, but if that's not affordable for landlords then they need to make an active income and sell their property.
Risks create costs, these costs are always passed to the consumer (tenants in this case).
The optimal solution is to remove/reduce this risk.
>Basically, on either side of this dividing line, there is enormous capacity for either side to get screwed over, but in real life, most landlords make money off of tenants (otherwise they wouldn't do it) and millions of tenants are struggling to get by. The system has to reflect the social reality, not a landlord's anxieties about being fully paid up in case something goes wrong.
Ofc. Landlords take preventive measures (like asking for a guarantor) and ask for higher rents in order to cover these risks and keep the business profitable.
If you add more risk/red tape to landlords. Landlords will pass these costs to the tenants as is natural.
There is no magic trick. If you want to reduce rents, you need to increase supply of rented properties and reduce all the risks/costs associated.
Isn’t this what landlord’s insurance is for? If you’re up shit creek when tenants are in rent arrears, then more fool you.
Landlord's insurance is shit and doesn't the financial hole. Only reduces it.
This is stupid. You can demand, they can reject. It s a free market. Some people have no history in the UK can only offer peace of mind to landlords if they pay in advance. This policy is pushing those tenants to streets or not coming at all.
Not coming at all is the whole point.
This isn't a free market though, it's a risk because investments have risks.
Yeah, and they try to offset these risks.
How about you don’t exploit people? This is good news.
This seems to be the place where landlords come to pretend they're concerned about international students and guarantor-less renters (instead of the impact on their own passive incomes)… perhaps if there are this many caring landlords, they could begin to solve the housing problem from their end, instead of slagging off a government that is having to enforce new rules to make it fairer?
Well said 👏🏻
I mean, there is a suitable solution which would be good for everyone.
Basically... If the tenant has rent arrears, be able evict to evict him in less than 15 days.
If that was the case. There is no neccesity of asking to guarantors or rents upfront. So it's better for everyone, honest tenants and landlords.
You keep saying it's better for everyone but it isn't for the person being evicted...
Who now have a much higher chance of living on the streets (expensive for the government) or smashing the house up
It's better for tenants who can keep paying rents on time ofc.
The alternative is Landlord giving free housing, which it's not going to happen. If you want that you need to go to a shelter charity.
Giving someone 2 weeks to find a new place to live isn't a reasonable solution to anyone with a conscience. Jesus christ
Effectively giving them over a year (because of the courts backlog) isn't reasonable either.
You sound like a real cunt
Im just gonna throw a stupid idea out here. But I'd be in favour of this (eviction proposal), on the explicit condition that landlords become legally obliged to provide a duty of care to ensure these people aren't made homeless (ie: a shelter of some kind), and that this is funded through a landlords tax.
For the record, I am just being sarcastic here, but I'll await the inevitable downvote spam and whine comments from Landlords hah
It's a good idea; landlords pay a fortune in taxes anyway. The publicity from saying part of that will go to homeless charities would be beneficial. Of course, being responsible for them after eviction won't work.
The government won't go for it, though. They want the tax to go into a big pot for them to spend as they like.
How is it exploiting anyone?
It will simply mean that those with a lack of credit history, self employed or poor credit will be excluded from the private rental market, how is this good news?
What are these people going to do? Where will they live?
A few years back many especially small one or two property LLs would take a punt on people like this, but now, most LLs would rather have a property empty than rent to a risky tenant.
You’re clearly gutted you can’t force foreign students to pay huge lump sums up front. You’re essentially saying if these people don’t pay a huge amount of money up front, then you won’t let them have a home. That’s exploitative.
No need to be called exploitative, just need to reject their application right away and only rent to people with a decent income. Don’t need to even think about giving them a chance, if that’s what you support.
You’ve got some cheek. When you buy a second home and generate a passive income from it, you’re contributing to the housing crisis. Then you want to add insult to injury by refusing to parasitically exploit those who are most desperate for a home because even the tiniest risk you might not generate income for doing fuck all is too unbearable. God, this subreddit reminds me why landlords deserve all the hate they get. I really hope we live in a society where it’s unacceptable to be a landlord one day.
Generating income after an investment is preferable to not generating income. The horror.
Again, if you’re only renting to decent income applicants, who’s being exploited again?
So excluding yet more people from the rental market, or a much higher rent to cover risk
actually it only stops the landlord to REQUEST, but i guess the tenant candidate can OFFER to pay more rent in advance?
Is it a piece of fiction, then? Seems pointless.
Even if you want to pay straight for 6 months or a year? Like some people who can't get approval but they can pay in full, they couldn't do that too?
That would be voluntary and is usually the minority. Most people don't have six months rent upfront and the law will most likely target requiring multiple months rent upfront.
Who is this person who fails the approvals but has like ten to twenty thousand to pay in forward rent?
>Who is this person who fails the approvals but has like ten to twenty thousand to pay in forward rent?
Right here.
I had a well paying job as a chef so had saved a lot of money. Then got seriously ill just before I moved so decided to leave my old job early and get myself well for a few months before my moving date to my new city.
Because I'd been technically unemployed for over 3 months, I had no income source to write down and so couldn't pass a financial check. It didn't matter that I had well over 6 months rent sitting in the bank, no estate agent would take me on as a client.
In the end I had to find something through Spareroom, as that way I could talk to a landlord directly and explain my situation without he middlemen.
Not happy with this.
I used to be a professional poker player. Naturally, it's perfectly reasonable for landlords to see that profession and think it's high risk to let to me. I got round that by just paying for a full tenancy in advance.
I'm sure there's loads of more precarious professions which are similar.
That seems like a very niche type of profession, like if they choose not to rent to you because your self employed then that's kinda their issue.
This law means they won't be able to require it, doesn't mean you can't offer it from my reading into it. Just means they can't slap you with a "we can't be sure about you, so we want you to pay a year's rent now or we won't give it to you".
I'm sceptical that you can prohibit requiring it effectively without prohibiting it entirely. Very few tenancies are advertised as being upfront payment only; it tends to be conditional upon the prospective tenant having worse financials.
In circumstances where landlords will be in an unambiguously worse position when it comes to tackling tenant default, I think this is just going to exclude a portion of tenants *who can afford rent and therefore shouldn't be the responsibility of the state* from the market.
I understand the disadvantage this may serve to Intl students or people without guarantor, however some landlords have been taking the pss with this, especially in London, people being priced out by some rich folks who can pay a year upfront. Even people offfering x2 of the rent asked is insane.
Saw this just now on Sky News - it's just a idea, but what do we think?
On one hand, say, 6 months for example is a lot to ask for up front, but then not everyone has a guarantor. What do we think? How will this affect international students for example?
https://news.sky.com/story/money-latest-black-friday-personal-finance-consumer-live-13040934
Right now, I've got an HMO with two foreign students that paid an entire year upfront. There's no way they would have been accepted otherwise
I think the bill in its current form directs the landlord to pay back all unused rent within a certain period of time if the tenant serves notice. That should be enough
As an alternative, I'd be much more comfortable with a system whereby a non-guaranteed tenant continues to pay several months early to cover the period a court would normally take to evict for non-payment. For example, June's rent would be due in January and so on. That way, they wouldn't have to come up with a full year up front
What a pragmatic approach 👍
The government should publish the courts backlog annually for this (and to highlight how shockingly bad a situation it is).
>As an alternative, I'd be much more comfortable with a system whereby a non-guaranteed tenant continues to pay several months early to cover the period a court would normally take to evict for non-payment. For example, June's rent would be due in January and so on. That way, they wouldn't have to come up with a full year up front
Basically the deposit. But with higher amounts.
Well. For a start, international students would not be eligible to rent. I guess the only possibility would be to become lodgers.
For ordinary residents. It's neccesary to pay some months upfront if you don't have any guarantors. Specially if you are going to remove the S21, make the S8 harder to use, etc...
The government should provide guarantor service for renters who don’t have one. If taking rent upfront is not allowed when eviction can take up to 6-12 months.
I'm sure this would be good for most people but it would have made things difficult for me, I offered to pay 6 months upfront to begin tenancy to show that me being unemployed wasn't going to be a problem
it bans them from requiring it, not from you offering it. It just stops landlords from demanding money in one lump sum.
They will almost certainly carve exemption for international students who also have to pay their entire degree upfront too
Yeah, of course. Robbing them blind is a birthright nobody would give up.
No one's forcing them to leave their country so they can come here and study a BA in Arts at the University of Sunderland with a £100k price tag.
Your education got funded by the fees they paid btw.
I studied Politics at Queen Mary University.
I regret it.
Which incentive has an international student to pay the rent...? Evictions can take 12 months, they will finish their course before that.
You can not pursue the unpaid rent later because the student doesn't have any assets in UK.
So, there are zero consequences for not paying rent... Why do it then?
With the current law, the only solution is paying the whole term upfront.
Are you aware of ground realities like at all? Universities promise on campus accomodation to all students and then randomly back out of that contractual agreement basically throwing them to the private market wolves.
Any international student that comes to the UK has to demonstrate the ability to pay through actual bank statements, so you're more likely to be paid and not less.
The consequences for not paying rent aren't zero, they are heavier. They stand to lose access to the UK if they don't pay, the thing they have paid so much for in the first instance.
Unlike local students, this isn't a hand out from the government they are passing on to you, it's their own hard earned money or a loan that they are personally accountable for.
This is before we start discussing how rents for international students are higher than they are for anyone else, so there's mitigation there too.
>Any international student that comes to the UK has to demonstrate the ability to pay through actual bank statements, so you're more likely to be paid and not less.
>The consequences for not paying rent aren't zero, they are heavier. They stand to lose access to the UK if they don't pay, the thing they have paid so much for in the first instance.
There are consequences if the student does not pay tuition fees. But we are not talking about that, neither university accomodation. We are talking about the private rental sector.
If an international student rents a private flat (or a room in a HMO), there are no consequences in case of rent arrears.
Unpaying the rent is not a crime, so the Home Office is not interested.
It absolutely does show up on your record as an unsettled debt reducing your chances of ever getting a loan or another rental. You won't even be able to get into the UK. It's an excuse to get money in the bank without giving a discount. In any other field, paying a year's worth upfront means you a get a free month but not when there are people who can so easily be taken advantage of.
If it really was about just financial security, a system escrows would have come up, but landlords don't get to enjoy extra cash flow that way so they don't. It's a classic case of a bullying one sided agreement.
>It absolutely does show up on your record as an unsettled debt reducing your chances of ever getting a loan or another rental.
Only if the landlord decides to pursue the arrears in court until they get a CCJ. For an international tenant without any assets in UK? Seems like a waste of money in court fees to me.
Also, if the student did not have the intention to settle in UK, why would care about a CCJ?
>If it really was about just financial security, a system escrows would have come up, but landlords don't get to enjoy extra cash flow that way so they don't. It's a classic case of a bullying one sided agreement.
That already exists. It's the rent deposit stored in a Deposit Protection Scheme.
The problem is.... The deposit is capped to 1 month of rental, which it's not enough to cover the arrears.
If the cap did not exist, yes. A 6-month deposit would be an alternative to paying the rent upfront.
Who cares, at least now normal people don’t need 10k in the bank just to rent a flat. This whole industry of rinsing rich foreign students is so detrimental to long term uk residents and has only ever been about £££. I don’t know many 20-25 years olds that can pay 6 months upfront plus a deposit
Dam, sucks for tenants with poor credit or no guarantors 🤷♂️
maybe the market could change and you could just rent to them without gouging 6 months all at once?
I don’t trust them stats in the slightest. Never asked for more than a month, never known of anybody doing it, and most comments when somebody asks always suggest a tenant offering say 6 months in advance seems suspect.
This is the same government that also wants tax up front that you haven't earned yet, that government?
It's OK when they do it!
I think these rules will apply to standard tenancies, providers of student accommodation will be treated slightly different
Not to nitpick, but it says "request" and not "accept" or "take" - so surely peoplenare still allowed to offer to cover more of this helps them, but landlords are not allowed to make it a requirement
That’s literally the current rule.
Crazy to think people are angry that more homes will be available to the average UK renter. People only think about themselves.
Tories are indifferent to the point of harming the population.
Labour are so set on providing equality that they will do things without considering if they'll actually work or make people's lives better.
Welcome to the Scotland approach.
how dare they try to help people :(
TLDR: intentions don't matter if the results are bad.
I know imagine sending millions of 18 years to study worthless degrees because you think it'll make their lives better.
Never mind what is likely a graduate tax for the rest of their lives they'll be paying for the rest of their lives. It's completely unreasonable to not let an 18 year old get into 50k worth of debt.
I guess you could set up a benefits system which punishes people for working. That might help things.
I also guess that funds were low in the 90s so why not get hospitals to take on expensive debt in the form of PFI's.
Or you could just let the tenants pay each month, and stop being such babies about it
I mean most of the international unis provide their own accommodation 👍🏻
Some have HMOs for first years.
For the first year or so?
"could be". It's pure speculation until it happens. Likely there will be exemptions for HMO properties rented entirely to students - much as there will be the ability to give notice to tenants in such properties when you won't have the ability with other property types, etc.
As someone that’s looking to become a landlord while we move to a new country for a trial period. I’m personally against taking multiple months rent off of someone as a guarantee, life sucks enough without being financially short and placing yourself in financial jeopardy to secure a place to live, especially a temporary arrangement and one you won’t own.
One of the things that is apparently relatively new is a service where the Tennant pays a weeks worth of rent in place of a months rent deposit, this is then backed and secured by a third party guaranteeing 7 weeks of rent for the landlord. In my opinion I’m much more comfortable with this rather than someone handing over a month’s rent they could be using while the economy is in the shitter. Especially as I have no mortgage.
Hahaha fuck you all 🖕
Hello economically contributing families
I do think there should be exceptions. I left my job due to extreme stress after my dad died suddenly this year. As well as rental history, every flat I viewed wanted a current employer reference to proceed with a tenancy. They also wouldn’t accept a private guarantor service. The only place I could stay was my dads flat which was too triggering for my mental health after he was gone, to the point I was suicidal and ended up in a hotel. I had a bit of cash from his workplace insurance policy, not enough to buy, and it wouldn’t have lasted me long in hotels/ air b&bs long term which are about triple the amount of renting per month. Couldn’t get a guarantor as family who are homeowners are on low incomes, and I could stay on sofas for a while but not permanently as family all live far away. I had enough for 6 months rent to secure a place whilst I get back on my feet and feel it was fair I was able to utilise that whilst in a unique position to do so.
I swear people are getting more greedy as the years go by
This subreddit is hilarious. Landlords thinking they're benevolent, and victims of government interference. Much like the rich farmers last week. Absolute s**m the lot of them.
I honestly don’t get why people are against this; asking for 6 months of rent upfront is surreal and extortionate. It’s an unethical practice that’s unheard of everywhere else. If you tried to pull this anywhere in Europe, you’d be laughed at. Maybe 3 months upfront would be acceptable but any more than that and it’s just absurd. You shouldn’t expect working people to have £7-10-15k cash sitting in their bank account. “BuT WhAt AbOuT bAd TenAntS” Honestly, I think landlords should just accept that renting out a property is inherently risky. You can’t have it all. Rent is paid monthly in every sane country and landlords deal with it. Anyone who is able to hold down a job and comes off well-presented and decent is unlikely to be a terrible tenant anyway.
A business does not "accept the risk", they work to minimise it or avoid it. Anyway, working people are much lower risk; they mostly have to face the financial consequences. Unlike international students.
What if you’re out of work but have cash, and need somewhere to live? I couldn’t get a tenancy without a current employer and family weren’t in a position to be a guarantor- had cash to pay up front and did so willingly. Couldn’t afford a hotel/ air b&b long term and wouldn’t want to take up vital space at a hostel when I could afford to rent privately.
The natural trend of a business is to mitigate risks. Paying the rent upfront is a way to mitigate the risks. The alternative is to request higher premiums.
I’m confused, how will this stop international students? This seems like it’s good for everyone EXCEPT the landlord
The premise is that international tenants, along with other high-risk tenant types, pose a greater risk to landlords. As a result, landlords often request rent in advance to mitigate this risk. If such practices are banned, landlords may choose not to rent to high-risk tenants at all.
It is indifferent to landlords, and a property may stay on the market longer. This is bad news for high-risk tenants.
Thank you for explaining that
These politicians want the majority to give them a “like” obviously. The immediate stamp duty changes and this now.
Landlords cannot request but tenants can still offer, right?
Unkown, too early.
I've also noticed that now agents only provide tenants with preferred handymen. So you locked out of the house, sorry here is the number, tap dripping - here is a number.
I understand before agents used to arrange this themselves for handymen to come out, but looks like now it's down to tenant and they have to deal with the problem themselves then pay the handyman.
Looks like more legislations that come in worse the market gets.
Personally I think government should bring in a database where both landlords and tenants register. Once the tenant leaves they leave a review and rating for a landlord/management company and vice versa.
Something like a rental credit system where everyone can access it and get a full understanding if they wish to rent from said landlord or if you wish to take certain tenant as a landlord.
It should keep both parties bit more accountable.
Tenants have always paid a locksmith or for keys cut when they lose them as far as im aware. There will be a data base of landlords soon.
what does your screenshot have to do with international students?
It is common knowledge that international students pay for several months in advance of a tenancy starting to secure their tenancy as they have no UK based credit, guarantors or references. This proposal, and it is just a policy proposal, would make it very hard for international students to rent property in the UK without becoming lodgers or similar, and lodgers have less rights than traditional tenants.