Government claim blanket guarantor requirements could hinder tenants

And what happens when Pennycook decides that guarantors are a problem (which, given his complete lack of any experience except advocating / government / non-profit is inevitable)?

A) Landlords realise how silly they are in mitigating the risk that a 5 week deposit does not potentially cover damage and potential loss of rent when the tenant can move a pet in on demand (Pennycook on record that he cannot see any extra risk from pets basically because he doesn’t have £2,000 minimum of carpets waiting to be infested, soaked, fouled or shredded per property and cannot begin to actually see the equation from the landlord perspective)?

B) Remove even more properties from the rental market (this includes lack of incentive to acquire additional properties both by existing and potential new landlords to replace those properties that leave the market naturally due to retirement or demise of the older generation of landlords)?

Whilst the Build to Rent players will take up some of the slack this will not include homes for less affluent tenants and will be geographically aligned to where tenant profile gives the greatest returns.

Personally I’m not keen on guarantors. Getting them to correctly sign the paperwork and have it witnessed by an appropriate person is highly problematic.

Ideally a tenant will pass referencing on their own merit.
However, that’s not always possible. Some referencing companies are a bit unreasonable where probationary contracts, fixed work contracts, self employment or gig economy are involved.
Sometimes I weigh up the circumstances and take the risk. So far no one has let me down.
I do some benefit level letting where obviously they fail referencing. As long as they have a solid benefit entitlement and reasonably affordable rent there aren’t many problems. I’ve currently got one guarantor and a couple of Council bonds on tenants with a UC entitlement.

Going forward the people who are really going to struggle are international applicants with no ability to work full time and no benefit entitlement. A lot of student visas only permit 20 hours a week of employment. That’s insufficient to pass affordability referencing. Historically we have been able to take several months rent in advance. Now the only option is going to be a guarantor. In most cases that will have to be a professional guarantor as they don’t have UK based family.

So far I haven’t experienced professional guarantors in action but it sounds like a useful option, although obviously an additional cost for the tenant.

Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 11/02/2026 – 10:34
I never used them on my family properties, but the specialist student letting agency I used on my student HMOs required guarantors for every UK student (usually parents). To me it is only logical as 18 or 19 year olds haven’t had any chance to build a meaningful credit history. The norm was rent paid termly in advance (which coincided with their student loan instalments paid to them. International students generally just paid the whole year up front (it was a Russell Group uni and this didn’t seem a problem for them – the overseas fee rate was about £25k a year).

Seemed to suit everybody, didn’t lose a single pound in rent over around 300 students, no voids except planned maintenance, and deposit retentions negligible.

Sold up now as hammered by S24 and just not interested in being dictated to over so many small details by those who have no practical understanding like Pennycook.

Oh – no ! It’ll be guns to our heads next!

The solution is easy, if the applicant does not pass referencing with flying colours and have a perfect rental history, then do not let to them. Sorry low income applicants, you will have to look elsewhere for your property. The RRA has well and truly screwed both landlords and tenants.

Reply to the comment left by The_Maluka at 11/02/2026 – 11:16
Said in a nut shell

I don’t like the sound of some of the wording here. We are all aware that guarantees offered by councils are highly limited in scope and/or timeframe as such they are not suitable alternatives. The government response suggests they are trying to force these limited guarantees on landlords.

None of my agents have ever asked me if i want or need a guarantor and now that guarantee only lasts a limited time and to set up properly cost a fortune so if you have a rogue tenant it will offer nothing.

So sounds like that the next thing would be if the tenant doesn’t pass affordability test landlord can’t refuse guarantee from local authority and obviously they won’t pay up without taking them to court which will cost even more.to evict with the vast resources council has.

If history is any indication, they will just do the same as they always do and blame landlords for the consequences of their actions, then whip up a frenzy and ban them for taking whatever measures are logical and reasonable.

Just look at the facts:

Rising tenant demand and decent returns led to many landlords entering the market and/or expanding or choosing to rent out properties they might otherwise have sold, whilst housebuilders did not keep up, probably due to government policy.

Cue a concerted campaign to convince the public that greedy landlords were depriving the average person of the opportunity to buy their own place and forcing them to rent to predatory landlords instead. Cue punishing legislation to stop landlords buying or keeping hold of rental property despite the obvious demand.

Consequently, landlords selling up and using section 21 to expedite the process, but tenants have nowhere to go because of the hostile environment. Cue a concerted campaign to convince the public that Section 21 is the problem, enabling heartless landlords to march tenants out of their homes by the thousands just for the hell of it, through no fault of their own, and force tenants to live in damp, draughty homes under threat of eviction

Cue new punishing legislation to make it much more difficult for landlords to sell or evict tenants for any reason, forcing them to take everything through a largely non-functional court system and gaslighting the public big-time into thinking that they have got rid of the scourge of “no fault” evictions.

Now landlords have to be ultra-careful about who they take on to mitigate the risks in what is now effectively a seller’s market in much of the country, shutting out any subprime tenants and raising rents to cover potential extra costs.

Cue legislation to prevent landlords from “discriminating” against tenants who can’t provide the necessary guarantees and maybe can’t even afford the rent in full.

TL:DR For every action there is a reaction. For every reaction there is another (counter) reaction. And so it goes on until some kind of equilibrium or total destruction is achieved.