Charities urge Labour to tackle ‘discriminatory’ PRS guarantor rules

I've accepted all the recent changes - they don't really affect me as a landlord since I simply increase my rents to price-in the changes.
However, having insisted on guarantors for the past 14 years (after very nearly coming a cropper), restrictions on the use of guarantors would be the trigger for us to sell up.
If the people who know you best don't trust you enough not to wreck my place or pay the rent, why should I?

So the charities claim that "there is very little danger that a tenant will not pay rent"

So it should be no problem then for THEM to be guarantor for these tenants.

After all, it will cost them nothing..........right?

Reply to the comment left by David100 at 18/03/2025 - 09:39
well said, these charities get millions in donations , they should act as guarantors to tenants who do not have one

While I understand that for many renters it can be difficult finding someone to act as your guarantor (rent AND damage guarantor), if your friends and family don't trust you enough to be your guarantor, then why should a landlord trust you?
I have had to be the guarantor for my daughter, but I trust her to be responsible enough to pay the rent and not damage the property.
However, not everyone is fortunate enough to have family who are able to provide such a guarantee, (or they don't trust their child(ren) to act responsibly in a tenancy), so there is a desperate need for an alternative solution, that can give the landlord the security they need, and thus give tenants access to the homes they need.
I have looked into the various "rent guarantee" schemes and insurances, and IMO they all fall short of providing the necessary guarantee, e.g. when the tenant stops paying the premiums, or if the tenant doesn't pass all the onerous requirements in the first place!
This is where central Government, Councils, or Shelter (or Generation Rent?), could step up to the plate and create a comprehensive rent and damage guarantor scheme, to help potential tenants to access private rented tenancies.
- They won't actually do this of course, as landlord bashing and taxing appears to be more important to them than actually finding solutions.
Imagine, a nationwide rent and damage guarantor scheme, (like a government backed unlimited tenancy bond), that landlords could rely on to pay out to cover (provable) losses, if the tenant trashed the house or failed to pay the rent. - If tenants are as reliable as Shelter and Generation Rent make out, then it would be an extremely low cost scheme, as there would be very few claims on it. (Indeed, it could even "save" them money on their homelessness budget).

It wouldn't be such a problem if we could remove non paying tenants easily.
They are trying to pass all the risk to the landlord and not enough profits. There is a point where landlords exit.
They don't care about the consequences of that, but tenants feel the pain.

They are making decisions for all landlords and tenants, but why not let these parties decide? Do they not believe in a free country?

“Everyone needs a safe, secure and affordable home.”
And every landlord needs a secure rent income.
Why should guarantors be restricted to six months rent? The tenancy is forever, so the guarantee must be forever. Why is Craw at all concerned about the guarantor, he is not the tenant.

If any of these 28 (cough) charities or the government would like to act as guarantors, I’m sure many landlords would consider it.

Of course, it would mean that there would be fewer properties available to those that have their own guarantors or that don’t need one.

Without the guarantor, many tenants will have zero chance
of getting tenancies which would otherwise be available to them. I will be tightening up on all requirements and insisting on excellent references and credit checks, even if it means extra time with voids.
Where are the people with no decent reference, poor job security, on benefits, with bad credit, etc., going to live, when no landlord in their right mind would take the risk on them without a guarantor?
Without security of some sort, there will be no tenancy from me.
It’s the poorest and most vulnerable who are going to lose out, as landlords ensure those more likely to be good tenants get the opportunities.
And there will certainly be no first time renters in my properties.

Reply to the comment left by Steve Rose at 18/03/2025 - 09:28
I agree. It’s funny that it’s seen as discriminatory to not take on someone who can’t get a guarantee. That directly means there are a risk, so not for me!
They can go to the council.
And I love the line, everyone deserves a safe warm home etc. well some of these terrible tenants don’t. Have you seen how they treat these houses? It’s a disgrace.
Another reason to leave the PRS. The fools making the rules just can’t draw simple conclusions. It would be laughable if it was not so bad for tenants.

Have they not considered for one moment why everyone is not eligible for a mortgage - perhaps those nasty banks are discriminating despite getting a huge deposit!