Alex Sobel MP on radio 4 demonstrates the lack of understanding of PRS?
This morning at around 7:50 am, Alex Soble, Labour MP for Leeds Central and Hedingley, demonstrated just how uninformed MPs are about the private rental market.
During a discussion about his desire to see the use of guarantors, he stated, “any good landlord will have rent guarantee insurance “, when talking about a care leaver who could not find a guarantor.
He was quickly corrected by the NRLA representative during the interview, but the point is that his ignorance of the facts is surely the perfect demonstration of the problems we landlords face under this government.
Kevin
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Previous Article
Renters' Rights Bill could lead to a surge in tenant CCJsNext Article
Lenders cut BTL rates for businesses and landlords
Member Since January 2015 - Comments: 1447 - Articles: 1
11:33 AM, 22nd July 2025, About 9 months ago
Actually why should PRS landlords have to have rent guarantee insurance?
Tenants should be paying their rent or be removed. None of this having to go to court.
Stop paying the HP on a car, car is taken away. End of.
Stop paying a mortgage, the property is repossessed. End of.
Member Since June 2019 - Comments: 781
1:31 PM, 22nd July 2025, About 9 months ago
In fact he shot himself in the foot as the prospective tenant would NOT have qualified for RGI – which is why she was being asked for a guarantor.
The NRLA should have pointed this out.
Member Since March 2022 - Comments: 365
1:43 PM, 22nd July 2025, About 9 months ago
They really have no idea. They have had poison poured in their ears by Shelter, Generation rent etc. for years. Once the RRB becomes law Just wait for all the unintended consequences to pop up and all the Government cack handed, counterproductive knee jerk reactions to them that will only make things worse.
Member Since July 2023 - Comments: 181
2:19 PM, 22nd July 2025, About 9 months ago
I laughed as well.
Don’t worry.. there are literally millions of prospective Ts that the LA will ‘guarentee’ the rent for as to have them in temp accn will cost a fortune.
More new joiners to this database daily.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3538 - Articles: 5
3:17 PM, 22nd July 2025, About 9 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jim K at 22/07/2025 – 14:19
the killer punch will be….
the RRB states no rent can be taken before a tenancy contract is signed.
1. This means any offer for payment of the first months rent from the Council (who will be desperately pushing to get the LL to take the T off the housing list) cannot not be accepted until after the tenancy is signed.
Whereas a private tenant may be able to send a bank transfer there and then after signing, so it hits the LL bank account and the keys can be released immediately, the council (on behalf of the tenant) will not be able to do this. Often there is a 5 day wait for money to be processed. Who on earth would sign a contract and give keys to a tenant in this situation? (NB this could also have building insurance/RGI insurance repercussions)
2. A benefit tenant cannot declare a change of circumstance (change of address) until AFTER the change happens. The LL is unable to notify the DWP directly and so is reliant on the claimant to do this. (and if they don’t?)
A claim is automatically reassessed as a result of an address change. There is always the possibility that re-assessment means that they are NOT eligible for the maximum LHA rate that the rental property has been assessed to meet (ie they WANT to move to a two bed but not eligible to receive the full 2 bed LHA rate).
If this happens they will more likely NOT be able to afford the top ups and so the property is now ‘unaffordable’.
A LL has no way of knowing what will happen when a change of circumstance is declared. (also note that the LL will have no way of confirming with the DWP that the tenant has/has not actually declared a change of circumstance!)
Therefore a guarantor will still be required for benefit tenants, because the prospective tenant is unable to provide any assurances before a contract can be signed, that they will be able to meet the rent obligations themselves (as the signatory) as per rental contract.
The government’s own benefit system fails to provide the ability for the tenant to secure private rental accommodation on the same level playing field as a private renter. In other words the system itself is discriminating against benefit recipients. The RRB will only further embed this imbalance.