Tenant referencing is getting tougher but are we going too far?
Tenant referencing is getting tougher under the Renters’ Rights Act, and I can understand why.
One of the biggest things I hear from landlords now is fairly simple: if a tenancy goes wrong, getting the property back is no longer as straightforward as it once was.
Since 1st May, Section 21 is gone, so landlords need a valid ground for possession and have to follow the proper process. That understandably changes how people look at risk before they hand over the keys. If getting tenant selection wrong carries more consequences, the natural response is to be more careful about who you accept.
I run Amhurst Lettings with my mum, Debbie. We manage residential properties across Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire. We came into lettings from a family background in residential construction, so we tend to look at management through a risk lens as well as a service one.
Good referencing has always mattered, but there’s a difference between being thorough and simply making the criteria harder for everyone.
What does stricter referencing actually look like?
In practice, landlords and agents get more cautious on affordability, employment history, credit, previous landlord references and how stable the application looks overall.
On paper, that sounds fair, but the problem starts when referencing becomes a blunt pass or fail, with almost no room for context. Someone who has just changed jobs might have a short employment history but solid income and a strong career. A self-employed applicant may not have tidy payslips. Someone who has recently moved to the UK, or who has never needed much credit, can have a thin file without ever having been in financial trouble.
If our answer to higher landlord risk is to keep narrowing who counts as “acceptable”, we will end up turning away perfectly good people because they don’t fit a standard box. That doesn’t mean lowering standards
I’m not arguing for being less careful. If anything, selection matters more now. A landlord needs confidence that the person moving in can reasonably afford the rent, look after the
home and meet their obligations. That should mean better due diligence and not harsher blanket rules.
There is a difference between an applicant who cannot show the rent is affordable, and one whose circumstances just need a bit more digging. Where something doesn’t fit the usual criteria, I would rather understand why. Is there a sensible explanation for the employment gap? Can the self-employed applicant show income another way? Is there a suitable guarantor? Does their previous tenancy history stack up? Does the whole application tell a consistent story?
None of that means ignoring genuine warning signs. It just means taking a fuller picture before you decide.
Communication matters too: What often frustrates applicants isn’t being asked for information; it’s being asked without knowing why, or being rejected with no idea which part of the application caused the problem.
If people know from the start what affordability evidence you need, what referencing involves, and when a guarantor might be required, they can decide whether to apply, which also saves landlords and agents a lot of wasted time.
We need to be careful what problem we’re solving.
The Renters’ Rights reforms have changed the risk calculation because Section 21 has gone, possession rests on the right grounds, and landlords want fewer serious problems during a tenancy. Tighter scrutiny at the application stage is hardly surprising.
However, if the sector’s response is simply to ratchet up every affordability ratio, demand a perfect credit history and reject anything slightly outside the norm, I think we create another problem.
Good tenants don’t always have perfect paperwork, so the better approach, in my view, is robust referencing with common sense: set clear standards, verify what applicants tell you, dig into inconsistencies, and look at the whole application rather than one number on a report.
That protects landlords without treating every applicant who falls outside a standard profile as a risk that is not worth taking.
Author bio: Becky Clarke is co-founder and director of Amhurst Lettings, an independent mother-and-daughter letting agency managing residential property across Nottinghamshire
and Leicestershire.
10 comments on this article
Learn from your peers’ experience
A different perspective could help you spot an issue, avoid a mistake or find a better way forward. Read the comments and add your own views if you wish.
Member Since September 2022 - Comments: 19
10:37 AM, 2nd October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
With the amount of properties available becoming less, and the increase in tenants seeking accommodation it will be beneficial to weed out any applicants that do not have a 100% record.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3766 - Articles: 5
10:57 AM, 2nd October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
I agree. Its getting so toxic that yes there is a risk of not taking on a good tenant. But you will never know will you?
The fear of letting, when the balance of fairness is so far swing in the tenants favour its little surprise LL’s are acting this way.
I don’t think there is an answer – its a case of do all the checks possible, all the referencing, protect yourself and your property as best you can and then go with your instinct.
What other choice do we have exactly – the lowest risk always being not letting at all.
Member Since February 2020 - Comments: 400
1:16 PM, 2nd October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Its not up to me, my rental guarantee products determine the level of criteria.
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 1392
3:40 PM, 2nd October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
I would tend to agree that from what I’ve read on the various forums, landlords seem willing to reject applicants for the most trivial of reasons. Applicants that I would have considered and possibly accepted. I dont know what the answer is though when the consequences of a mistake can be so severe. Perhaps it’s just down to market forces. When demand stops being so far in excess of supply, perhaps expediency will kick-in
Member Since January 2015 - Comments: 1623 - Articles: 1
10:10 AM, 3rd October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Letting Agents need to 109% realise their client is the landlord who will bear the brunt of non-payment of rent, renting some someone not entitled to rent, damage caused to their property by the tenant, ASB by their tenant, and the costs and stress of regaining possession.
Criteria should be tough for prospective tenants especially under this government and the RRA.
Member Since February 2024 - Comments: 27
11:21 AM, 3rd October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
As a landlord the law doesn’t protect me, so I will protect myself as best I can. If the protection I give myself is not enough then I will cease to be a landlord. That way the tenant will be 100% protected from my potential over zealous referencing and are free to choose from the now smaller pool of potential properties with the accompanying supply demand ramifications on rents
Member Since June 2019 - Comments: 977
1:02 PM, 3rd October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
If the prospective tenant does not pass the RGI criteria l am sad to say that I could no longer accept them as a tenant.
That said my very worst tenants did pass prior to the tenancy starting. I see no way of accurately predicting if they are going to become an alcoholic, or start having an affair or Thier kids becoming druggies.But at least I would have been insured against the problems.
Member Since October 2022 - Comments: 278
4:44 PM, 3rd October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 02/10/2026 – 10:57
I think many people are taking that last option. That is after all the primary purpose of most of the recent legislation, to make it too risky for the small-time landlord to be able to stomach.
Member Since October 2022 - Comments: 278
5:29 PM, 3rd October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Everybody has their own idea of what risk they want to take and let’s be honest, renting is now an extremely risky business with potentially life-changing effects on one’s wealth and reputation as well as peace of mind and general mental health.
I’ve had my fair share of run-ins with bad tenants too. Thankfully all of them were resolved without going to court but some were quite close, including one or two that ended with a call to the police and at least one that threatened to damage my property and left before I could report him.
At this stage we have only two obligations, which are compliance and our own self-protection. Actually they are two sides of the same coin. The powers that be are becoming so hostile that we have no other choice than to be hard-nosed about it, becoming the very thing that we have long been accused of.
Giving people the benefit of the doubt is just putting yourself at unnecessary risk, especially when there are other equally worthy lower-risk tenants looking for a roof over their heads that are unlikely to cause any problems.
Member Since September 2020 - Comments: 23
7:08 PM, 5th October 2026, About 2 weeks ago
Crisis accs yr ending June 2025
Annualemployee benefits
21 ……60,000….£70,000
12 70,000…£80,000
4 £80,000…..90,000
3 90,000……100,000
1 £130,000……140,000
Acros the whole organisation Crisis had a average of 710 employees 24.25
total staff cost £35,946 million
Senior management £829,000
Volunteers 6157 supported Crisis
1022 volunteers in Charity shops
Crisis at Christmas volunteer was 3,500so there is roughly 9 volunteers for 1 paid member of staff
perhaps Crisis managment would like to dig deeper into their pockets and fund homes
les thann 60p in the poind goes directly to where its needed