0:01 AM, 19th June 2025, About 3 weeks ago 11
Text Size
The controversial Renters’ Rights Bill may inadvertently exclude some of the rented sector’s most vulnerable tenants, one firm reveals.
According to Leaders Romans Group (LRG), the Bill’s restriction on limiting advance rent payments to one month could hinder access to housing for vulnerable groups of people.
These include overseas applicants, self-employed people and those lacking a UK credit history.
LRG’s Q1 2025 Lettings Report reveals that 57% of tenants struggle to secure a rental property, with 21% citing the challenge of providing several months’ rent upfront.
Paying rent upfront, LRG says, is a common tactic to boost an application when standard references are insufficient.
The firm’s national lettings managing director, Allison Thompson, said: “The intention to make renting fairer is positive, but fairness must start at the application stage.
“Our data shows that many tenants rely on rent in advance as a practical, proven solution.
“Four in 10 landlords are open to this where it helps a reliable applicant secure a home.”
She added: “Capping advance rent could have the opposite effect to what’s intended, making the system less fair for those who already face barriers.
“We urge Parliament to protect the option for landlords and tenants to agree a higher up-front payment where it’s the only route to securing a home.
“Negotiated advance payments, used with safeguards, are a bridge into housing, not a loophole.”
LRG says that other obstacles include having no UK credit history (11%) and irregular or self-employed income (10%).
The report underscores the importance of advance rent payments, noting that 41% of landlords are willing to accept low-income tenants who offer additional upfront payments, compared to just 6% without this option.
The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) supports these findings, reporting that 91% of landlords currently request no more than one month’s rent in advance.
Just 8% of landlords want more in cases of weak references or limited credit history.
Both the NRLA and Propertymark have raised concerns that eliminating the ability to negotiate advance payments could exacerbate difficulties for tenants with poor credit or fluctuating incomes.
International tenants, particularly overseas students, face significant risks, they warn.
Many of those from overseas rely on paying multiple months of rent upfront to meet referencing requirements, as they often cannot provide a UK guarantor.
Without this flexibility, LRG fears they may be pushed towards costlier, less suitable housing options.
Cider Drinker
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up8:14 AM, 19th June 2025, About 3 weeks ago
Nothing ‘inadvertent’ about it. The government has known all along that this would happen. They do not care.
The RRB and EPC changes will reduce supply of the cheapest PRS properties. Those who rely on this area of the market will find the homes are being sold as landlords give up trying to jump through ever higher hoops. The risks are just too great.
Only the better quality homes will remain in the rental market and the cost of these will jump.
The cheapest, least energy-efficient homes will either be sold to first time buyers or let to migrants via the likes of Serco. The government knows what it is doing.
Sam B
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up9:57 AM, 19th June 2025, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 19/06/2025 - 08:14
Hi there. One thing also lurking in the background is the decent homes standard. Given the vast expense of the epc improvements to very little saving compared with the expense - I suggest the decent homes standards will probably be punitive also. Many landlords seem to be obsessed with the epc changes when that is getting very little attention
Jonathan Breslaw
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up10:25 AM, 19th June 2025, About 3 weeks ago
Observation is totally correct . The restrictive and putative legislation makes renting to anyone other than an A1 applicant impossible .
The only way to make renting to those that are not A1 is to give landlords the ability to evict them without the major costs, stress , inconvenience and time that the law currently stands at.
Dss tenants told to stay put till bailiff comes and given free legal representation.
Policy makers are fools . Being a landlord now is insane and any agent or landlord that says he can do a safe let is a liar .
Look at all the ambulance chaser solicitors advertising no win no fee to attack landlords for anything .
The councils ready to fine you and actively seeking to .
We have to bow to these over empowered jobsworth .
A simple help line in every borough that tenants who feel they are being mistreated that they can report the landlord so that the council can deal with would be a far better way to improve standards rather than making life hard for the decent landlords .
Council home demand will now exponentially increase .
Social housing tenants will get no win solicitors attacking the councils for compensation re repairs not carried out .
Who pays for this ? The tax payer .
What a joke we are !
Ross Tulloch
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up10:26 AM, 19th June 2025, About 3 weeks ago
At the risk of stating the obvious this was bound to happen. We as a policy will no longer be taking anybody who is in the slightest bit vulnerable as there are always people with proper jobs out there they will always have the advantage over the people without given all this new legislation, which as many forms of legislation has endless unintended consequences, unintended, but inevitable
MPD
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up10:51 AM, 19th June 2025, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 19/06/2025 - 08:14
I truly think you believe that politicians are smarter than the average voter and think things through to their logical conclusion. They don't and they never have. History is littered with evidence to prove this as fact
Reluctant Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up12:05 PM, 19th June 2025, About 3 weeks ago
Forget the implication of possession/increasing renters right for a min...
At the very basic level whatever happens - the price of accommodation at the lower end of the scale is going to rise. LL's are simply going to have costs associated with the RRB that they will have to pass on. Database registration, ombudsman membership etc. Not to mention SL which is now almost mandatory across the board these days.
So even if the LL were offering at LHA rates, the rent will rise. Add to that costs of EPC upgrades and the like and the LL who IS A BUSINESS, will again need to pass this on.
If everything remained as is, rents will rise.
When you add in all the other stuff, like the hasstle with UC, rent arrears, possession delays, costs...then the BUSINESS decision will be one of the following
1.Carry on and subsidise the tenant's rent for ever more
2. Get benefit T out, increase rent and get in private payer.
3. Cal it quits - stress not worth it and sell.
4. T out and move in yourself (the possibly sell where you live currently)
5. Rent out to local council as temp accommodation (avoid SL and you have no direct AST with T so outside RRB)
6. Rent out to Serco et all
7. Commercial let to a Social housing provider for X number of years (no SL, outside RRB etc)
8. Convert property into flats and let individually to private payers)
Reluctant Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up12:09 PM, 19th June 2025, About 3 weeks ago
"Negotiated advance payments, used with safeguards, are a bridge into housing, not a loophole.”
So basically an legally agreed contract entered into freely between two parties.
The RRB is taking the right away of tenants to be able to secure a tenancy.
The RRB is making it impossible for private landlords to respond to market/tenant need.
The RRB will cause homelessness - because people will not be able to secure tenancies due to the restrictive nature of the legislation. .
Reluctant Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up12:13 PM, 19th June 2025, About 3 weeks ago
Without this flexibility, LRG fears they may be pushed towards costlier, less suitable housing options.
...and into the hands of landlords that wont be the ones compliant to RRB, SL etc and who's properties wont have all the legal compliance no doubt either...
Darren Peters
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up13:03 PM, 19th June 2025, About 3 weeks ago
If you follow the vector or trend in what's imposed upon landlords it's only a matter of time before the local council or some quango decides who lives in your property. You either put it up for rent and take whoever is imposed upon you or you sell up. You probably also would have to pay another licence/tax/fee to fund the quango.
While you may think it it a stupid idea, it wouldn't be the first one we have suffered.
DPT
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up10:05 AM, 24th June 2025, About 2 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Sam B at 19/06/2025 - 09:57
I think the difference is that costly upgrades to things like kitchens and bathrooms usually add value to the property which can be recouped when the owner sells. I'm not aware of any significant added value from EPC upgrades yet. It might come in the future, but I wouldnt hold my breath.