Renting In Bankruptcy.... Part Deux

Worcsman

out_of_cash wrote: »

hi all,

i have just spoken to a letting agent in my home town who have said they want 7mths in advance and £150 admin fee "they can dream on"

I forgot to mention our admin fee, £150 quid too. Plus the £35 for the credit check, they they shouldn't have bothered with. They used Homelet and I am quite sure they did as homelet contacted my current LL and my place of work.

I will make sure that the up front rent payment I made goes to the LL, if the lettings agency go bust, you can bet your !!!! that the LL wont give 2 hoots that I already paid someone else, he will want his cash and who could blame him for that.

WLITC

out_of_cash wrote: »

i have just spoken to a letting agent in my home town who have said they want 7mths in advance and £150 admin fee "they can dream on"

alastairq wrote: »

I cannot believe that folk still equate bankruptcy with being penniless.

Yikes, thats just taking the p .. I'm going to start looking in a few months and when I find something, I'm going to try and negociate just 3 months. As people have pointed out, its kinda crazy that we need to payout 6 or even 7 months. If I get sorted with a good job (which I hope to in the next month or two) I'll actually have more surplus income than I have since I probably first started working and therefore probably a greater ability to pay than than the average brit who is only just getting by, with a bunch of debt/bills and pretty much living off their overdraft each month.

Ineedaname

out_of_cash wrote: »

hi all,

i have just spoken to a letting agent in my home town who have said they want 7mths in advance and £150 admin fee "they can dream on"

All agents will charge an admin fee and that one sounds about average. The 7 months may actually be 6 months in advance plus a month's deposit, some agents forget to detail it properly!

I do think it's ridiculous that someone who is essentially now solvent and unlikely ever to get into debt again is penalised this way. We're far more likely to keep up payments and be able to do so than someone struggling with their finances who has a good credit record. After all, a lot of us go BR because we've prioritised keeping a roof over our heads and had to let the debt repayments lapse to do so. :mad:

out_of_cash

whats to stop the landlord doing a runner with the 6 months up front rent which is going into thousands in some areas?

i am now real concerned as i did have a family member willing to help me out but not on a maybe their money will be ok 3-4k!

out_of_cash

seems to me its another way of being penalised,also have to take out contents insurance so i really dont see wher the risk is to a lanlord,in my current situation they wont even accept housing beifit even when its arranged to be paid directly to them via the council etc,couldnt be anymore secure for them than that.

Ineedaname

The 6 months up front is mostly required when renting through a letting agency. So you and the landlord have to trust the agency. You'll have a tenancy agreement for the 6 months anyway so even if the landlord does run off you can stay put for the period you have paid for. The landlord should have relevant insurance if dealing with an agent so again, if the agent bugs off with the money both you and the landlord should be OK.

Housing benefit paid direct is still a worry for landlords. There's been lots of problems where changes to payments haven't been actioned and landlords have either had to refund the council or chase tenants for top ups. It's not as straight forward as it sounds and can be a nightmare for landlords and tenants.

Otherwise the HB/UB40 thing is a legacy of the 80s and many HB tenants not looking after properties or not being reliable in paying their rent. This generally isn't now the case but letting agents still advise landlords against HB tenants. A lot of landlords are happy renting direct to HB tenants and would do so through an agency too, if the agency allowed for it.

alastairq

All this rent-in-advance stuff I now believe occurs because letting agents offer security of income guarantees to landlords....

The Letting agents have insurance cover which guarantees 6 months payment of rent should a tenant default.

A condition of that cover being in place is, any prospective tenant will undergo a credit check.

What BR's are being lumbered with is, the rent in advance, for LL's security from the letting agent.

All because the insurers decide that BR is something to be avoided.

Which begs the question, of why insurers are against BR?

Maybe its down to the policies of those that own the insurers?


What we need is legislation to encourage tenancies.

At the moment, letting agents are sniffing big profits from prospective landlords, by playing on the landlord's insecurities?

Worcsman

out_of_cash wrote: »

whats to stop the landlord doing a runner with the 6 months up front rent which is going into thousands in some areas?

i am now real concerned as i did have a family member willing to help me out but not on a maybe their money will be ok 3-4k!

Nothing.. But if he does that, you are still resident and eviction takes many many months. Even so, if the LL was to do a runner with your cash any judge would see fit to allow you your right to stay for the duration of your lease. I have spoken to my LL, he has confirmed that he has recieved the cash now so I am not concerned about the LA going bust and leaving me oweing the LL rent.
We are learning how to live as BR's. Quite exciting one day, quite disheartening the next. Never a dull moment since Autumn 2009!!!

Worcsman

alastairq wrote: »

All this rent-in-advance stuff I now believe occurs because letting agents offer security of income guarantees to landlords....

The Letting agents have insurance cover which guarantees 6 months payment of rent should a tenant default.

A condition of that cover being in place is, any prospective tenant will undergo a credit check.

What BR's are being lumbered with is, the rent in advance, for LL's security from the letting agent.

All because the insurers decide that BR is something to be avoided.

Which begs the question, of why insurers are against BR?

Maybe its down to the policies of those that own the insurers?


What we need is legislation to encourage tenancies.

At the moment, letting agents are sniffing big profits from prospective landlords, by playing on the landlord's insecurities?

That sounds about right to me. Getting a private rental agreement is about the same as getting a new motor, if you dont pass the credit check, you aint getting one, unless you can buy it outright. Paying up front circumnavigates the credit check but some LA's, like mine, still charge for one. No credit check, no need for credit, no problem.
It's harsh, I think housing should lie outside of those rules. I would love to see a chart showing BR's versus non BR's as a percentage of who defaults on rent. I have a feeling the graph would be very one-sided.

Worcsman

missyp123 wrote: »

have to say when i worked in lettings the same senorio was agreed, however there was no need at all for a credit check, money was up front, you declared your financial status so no insurance was needed for the LL at all! crazy!
i think they were making an extra few bob tbh.

Quoted you earlier on this post but couldn't say who said it as I had forgotten, just re-read so now I know! Thanks.