Close Menu
    Landlords to be banned from demanding several months’ rent in advance
    United Kingdom

    Landlords to be banned from demanding several months’ rent in advance

    Share.
    View 28 Comments

    28 Comments

    1. TheLyam on

      To preempt those saying this will lead to an increase in rent, what wouldn’t lead to an increase?

      Labour have already stated they are looking to build houses, I can’t remember the exact amount, which is obviously not an overnight job and something we should reserve judgement on.

    2. marketrent on

      Landlords defend practice as protection against lower-income individuals.

      By Vicky Spratt:

      *[…] Under the changes, landlords will still be able to ask tenants to pay one month’s rent upfront, alongside a deposit of up to six weeks’ rent as allowed under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.*

      *The Government and tenants groups say this will provide enough “financial assurance” to landlords while cracking down on “unscrupulous” property owners discriminating against some renters, such as lower earners.*

      *However, landlords claim the policy will leave them more vulnerable to unreliable tenants.*

      *[The National Residential Landlords Association] NRLA called on ministers to “provide clarity” on how renters will “demonstrate their ability to afford” rent moving forward.*

      *Private renters are already subjected to referencing and affordability checks – which can include having to list an employer or provide payslips – when applying for a new home.*

      *The i Paper previously reported the stories of renters being asked to pay as much as a year’s rent in advance to secure a tenancy.*

      *The amounts asked for ranged from £2,000 and, even, in one case, almost £20,000.*

      *In one case, flagged by the Renters’ Reform Coalition, a single parent named Ellie** *who relies on Universal Credit to top up her income was asked to pay six months’ rent upfront and provide a guarantor who earned over £45,000 a year because of her low salary.*

    3. Redditisfakeleft on

      >However, landlords claim the policy will leave them more vulnerable to unreliable tenants.

      No investment is risk free. The landlord demographic have dumped their money into property seeking comparatively high returns at low risk. Increasing the risk would see that money moved to more socially useful schemes. The risk averse need to go stick their funds in a savings account.

    5. TinFish77 on

      Labour’s ‘change’ agenda is so leisurely that I don’t think that most people will see a difference in the quality of their lives by the time of the next GE. There is nothing other than pointless gimmicks like this in the immediate term.

      I mean, good luck with the election of course.

    6. 87997463468634536 on

      any time you try to stop these leeches from rinsing the populace they always find a way to keep on feeding like the parasites that they are.

    7. reggieko13 on

      How will this work for those with no history in this country to show they can pay as rent up front is often used in those situations

    8. Friendly_Fall_ on

      This sounds like a good idea, but will likely screw anyone without a job or guarantor, no? Some people need to pay up front in lieu of those things

    9. hoolegr on

      “landlords say this leaves them vulnerable” it’s an investment, get a real job if you want stability

      Edit: I’m going to save myself some time on responses.

      “I should be able to recuperate any costs put in” nope, you invested time and money, as with anything you’re not guaranteed returns on that.

      “They deserve to have laws in their favour” they already are, tenants deserve laws in there’s as well. If you think you deserve 3 months rent in advance, plus rent each month during that time still, then try that at work, go to your boss and ask for 3 months pay in advance as well as being paid each of those months.

    10. AuContraireRodders on

      I think there has to be a middle ground. I don’t think it’s sensible to get rid of it entirely, because not everyone can get a guarantor, but a cap at 3 months is reasonable, I’ve always thought 6 was ridiculous and 12 even worse. If your affordability and referencing checks and a cushion of 3 months rent can’t convince you that someone can afford it then you’re a nob head.

    11. SlightlyMithed123 on

      Surely landlords will just stop renting properties to people who they would previously asked for rent up front?

      All this policy will do is make it almost impossible for a lot of people to rent a property

    12. HelloW0rldBye on

      I’m guessing the tenant can still offer to pay 6 or 12 months in advance if they fail their checks and want to secure a tenancy?

      It’s just the landlord that can’t demand it.

    13. PeeOnYoFace007 on

      I’ve been very critical of labour on immigration, but their housing policy has been good so far

    14. NoRecipe3350 on

      I’m sure this will still go on. I once managed to get a fairly good discount by paying all upfront and stipulating my exact moving out date (just midway through the month).

      But I understand it’s important to have these protections.

    16. Bean-Penis on

      I hate that this is a thing _but_ for people like me who have no chance of a guarantor finding a landlord willing to take double or triple deposit was the only way we could get into a place. It will screw some people over, if it happens it means I won’t be moving at end of my lease and I absolutely hate the place I am now so had already started saving.

    17. PeachesGalore1 on

      There’s no good reason to demand several months rent up front, just scumlords being scum Lords.

    18. ConnectPreference166 on

      Good! You can have perfect credit and good references and they’ll still ask for six months which is very unreasonable.

    19. radiant_0wl on

      So now risky tenants will simply be refused tenancy, congratulations. 

      I don’t see how this can be interpreted as helpful. 

    20. Logical-Brief-420 on

      This is just Labour doing something that seems good on paper but in reality really isn’t at all helpful. Yet more performative politics IMO.

      Paying rent in advance has absolutely saved me more than once. When you’re young, from a lower socio economic background, and have no guarantor paying rent in advance is the ONLY way landlords will take you on for a tenancy.

      Now they’ll simply rent to someone else (and there’s no shortage of applicants) because why would they take the risk with me when I can longer provide a guarantee of security for them.

      Just build more fucking homes, don’t bring in shitty little poorly thought through ideas like this.

    21. Gadget-NewRoss on

      One of the top questions on the landlord subs im on is should I accept a yr rent in advance, the majority hold the opinion you should not accept it as it just will cause issues.

      Yet on the uk its the other way ? Landlords demanding it up front. What happens if the tenant is trouble a lot harder to remove if the rent is prepaid.

    23. nbraeman on

      I wonder if it will be worded in such a way that you could still _offer_ to pay rent in advance to gazump any competition.

    24. Legitimate-Leg-4720 on

      Well I’m screwed, no guarantor, no landlord reference from the past 3 years, also a student. Not even my pot of savings can help me now.

    25. NibblyPig on

      All landlords want is someone that will pay the rent each month and fulfil the terms of the rental agreement.

      They demand several months in advance because there are no protections if the tenant breaks the signed contractual agreement both parties consented to. They can stop paying rent but still continue to live there, not only meaning the landlord doesn’t get rent, but potentially also trashing the place and then continuing to take advantage of the rental rules that allow them to stay there almost indefinitely if they know how to really play the game.

      Demanding this much rent up front is directly to counter the fact there’s no protections if the tenant reneges on the contract they signed. Assuming the tenant stuck to the agreement, there would be no reason to demand rent up-front.

      The government making it difficult to remove non-paying tenants is pretty wild. It gets even crazier when you consider the government will demand you do not show bias towards having people on housing benefit as tenants, and then when the tenants can’t pay the rent anymore, having the council *tell* the tenants not to leave and to take advantage of the fact they can’t be evicted for non-payment. Essentially, the council will say sure I’ll help you rent this house as you’re on low income, oh now you can’t afford to pay your share, don’t worry we’ll just legally make the landlord foot the bill.

      Ultimately this is just landlords saying, I just want you to hold up your end of the deal, and the only reason I need to ask for rent up front is because the government has made it my problem if you don’t pay.

      Try not paying for groceries next time you’re shopping and see how valid and government backed *that* is.

    26. AligningToJump on

      Good they should be banned for demanding a deposit too. A lot of people can only afford the first months rent and that’s it

    27. francisdavey on

      A point to remember is that it is fairly easy to get insurance against failure to pay rent by tenants. Also that a tenant who is really not paying rent (at all) can be evicted much more quickly and easily than one who is not at fault. Failure to pay rent is a risk associated with letting out properly, but it is a much more manageable risk than (say) having a really mad tenant burn the house down.

      (Of course you can insure the building, but it is harder to persuade insurers to insure against significant and deliberate damage by a tenant).

      Failure to pay rent insurance does of course *cost* and therefore makes the letting more expensive which could mean either (i) less profit or (ii) higher rent and which it does will depend on the market locally. Landlords already have to take measures like this for void periods and other problems – and insure against other risks as well.

      In short: this does not change things all that fundamentally, though of course it may increase rents.

      All this is fine – and there’s been some positive tenant protection mechanisms in recent times – but it doesn’t address fundamental problems with supply/demand.

      Obviously more houses would be good. You could also introduce an England-wide rent cap (an idea a fellow housing barrister persuaded me would work). If max rent was X then that would be the rent in (say) Chelsea and force down other rents everywhere. Of course in some places it might make it unprofitable and lead to house sales or empty homes (which you have to catch with a beefed up EHMO system). Also, making sure capital gain and income from outside employment is not treated as better than employed income would help generally – here also.