MSE News: U-turn means flatmates' poor credit won't harm you

MissMoneypenny

jamie11 wrote: »

Would councils have to take them on if they have a record of rent arrears in the private sector? I think maybe not.

I think the council would be required to house them and that they would go to the top of the housing list, just as someone coming out of jail, does.

If you became homeless because of rent arrears and you thought your partner was paying the rent, the council may consider your partner to be intentionally homeless, but not you. This only applies if you can show that you were unaware of the other person's actions, did not agree to their actions, or couldn't stop them.

One adult is not usually responsible for the behaviour of another adult. So, if something that your partner/spouse did led to the family being evicted, s/he may be intentionally homeless but you can make a fresh homelessness application. Your partner/spouse can still be included in the application as part of your household. However, if you joined in the behaviour, or failed to do things that could easily have been done to stop it, then you can be found intentionally homeless as a result.
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/help_from_the_council/what_the_council_will_check/intentional_homelessness

Interestingly, the key seems to be whether you have made youself "intentionally homeless" ie by a court order to reposses the house if you haven't paid your mortgage or court order to remove a tenant if they are 2 months late with the rent. A criminal coming out of jail isn't seen as their actions causing themselves to be "intentionally homeless".

Having read an account on these boards where for months, a poster and her family were trying to get a housing association house by the means of her mother evicting them from their rental house (which the mother owned) and they got one, I would think the council would be required to house tenants who only had a late rental payments on the Experian records but never had a court ordet to evict them.

Even more of a case to house them perhaps if their homelessness was caused by another tenants actions or incorrect records held by Experian caused by the landlords and letting agents giving Experian incorrect information. This is not like being turned down for a mortgage or credit card and councils are legally bound to house the homeless if the legal defination of "intentionally homeless" is not proven.

MissMoneypenny

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Most people don't though.

I move every 2 -5 years and I own my own house (well, the mortgage company did really until I cleared my mortgage). The most I have ever lived in one house, is 7 years.

I either move for work; because I have sold some of the garden to builders; have seen a place I like better or know where the light switches are in my house in the dark.

jrawle

Well done MSE. However, am I the only one who's concened that it took your campaign to make Experian realise it was a bad idea? If they have such a poor grasp of the realities of the rental market, should they really be trusted to operate a scheme that could have a severe impact on someone's life?

MissMoneypenny

aldredd wrote: »

Expect to see a surge in requests for social housing!

And a huge surge in subletting.

grey_gym_sock

presumably experian will be take their usual approach, and only correct errors when the landlord who supplied the information asks them to correct it. this is very problematic.

banks may be generally loathed, but they do have procedures for dealing with complaints, and if that doesn't work you can go to an ombudsman. neither LLs nor LAs have the appropriate procedures in place.

perhaps procedures could be developed, but (a) they ought to be in place before this scheme starts (b) only bigger LAs (and perhaps a few big LLs) are ever going to be able to do this properly.

while it's a good idea to make people aware of the obligations they're taking on in jointly-and-severally-liable tenancy agreements, the reality is that many people have, at least on occasion, little choice but to enter into such agreements with people they barely know. you can (and should) try to be careful. but then you may have 1 more room to fill in a house, and nobody you know well who wants it. there may be somebody you don't know, but another tenant (whom you do know) does; but do you know the other tenant well enough to trust their judgment? and so on.

plumber2009

What a Utter STUPID idea.

First of all if someone failed to keep to their rent arrangment they will be thrown onto the street where as mortgages are very diffrent. Even if in social housing you risk being evicted if rents are not paid.

Everyone needs a roof over their head and renting is nescessary for most people. Mortgages on the other hand are very diffrent and hence why they are reflected on credit scores. Mortgages are also optional.

We are going to end up with hundreds of thousands of people on the streets as they will not be able to get a tenancy agreement.

This could potentially create a two tier system where rental payment amounts become dependand on credit scores. This will also open up the rental market to abuse.

How many people are happy to allow agencies to destroy their credit history due to negligence and poor data protection practices as its bad enough with the banks.

VERY BAD IDEA INDEED.

If this goes ahead then I think that the landlord (if mortgaged) should give details of his payment records to me too.

aldredd

plumber2009 wrote: »

First of all if someone failed to keep to their rent arrangment they will be thrown onto the street where as mortgages are very diffrent. Even if in social housing you risk being evicted if rents are not paid.

You can already be evicted for not paying your rent - and rightly so (as long as you're given a chance to put things right)

plumber2009 wrote: »

We are going to end up with hundreds of thousands of people on the streets as they will not be able to get a tenancy agreement.

In reality, I don't think this will happen. I would hazard a guess that there is a strong correlation between people not regularly not paying their rent and people not paying their other bills, and a credit check they already do would reflect this.

If anything, it may help some people, as it may show that whilst the existing bills they sometimes struggle with, they may always prioritise their rent, which can only be a good thing.

plumber2009 wrote: »

How many people are happy to allow agencies to destroy their credit history due to negligence and poor data protection practices as its bad enough with the banks.

this is the part which concerns me the most - lets face it, letting agents (certainly the one's I've dealt with) are not the most trustworthy people out there - just always looking at how to next rip you off!

plumber2009 wrote: »

If this goes ahead then I think that the landlord (if mortgaged) should give details of his payment records to me too.

Not a bad idea at all given the implications if they're not keeping up. Though I suspect any reputable LL, if asked, would provide you with written confirmation from the bank that their mortgage is up to date.


I don't have a problem with the concept being proposed - but do think there are details yet to be ironed out - perhaps an ' independent' appeals route when there are issues, much like for the deposit scheme (another grossly abused (by the LA's) scheme).

beansy

WELL DONE MARTIN AND THE REST OF THE TEAM.

Another Victory on behalf of those - who on their own - wouldn't be heard.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

beansy wrote: »

WELL DONE MARTIN AND THE REST OF THE TEAM.

Another Victory on behalf of those - who on their own - wouldn't be heard.

Yes, I agree.

Removing the link between flatmates on other financial affairs such as credit cards is a good step. Which is what it looks like this MSE publicity has achieved.

Of course, tenants will still be liable for their flatmates unpaid rent in most cases, and if a flatmate fails to pay, and the other tenants don't cover it, it will still now be a black mark on all of their credit ratings.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

plumber2009 wrote: »

First of all if someone failed to keep to their rent arrangment they will be thrown onto the street where as mortgages are very diffrent. Even if in social housing you risk being evicted if rents are not paid.

Everyone needs a roof over their head and renting is nescessary for most people. Mortgages on the other hand are very diffrent and hence why they are reflected on credit scores. Mortgages are also optional.

Why do you keep saying "mortgages are very different"?

There is absolutely no difference in terms of how serious a commitment rent is versus a mortgage. OK, rent is a shorter term, but that's it.

Someone most likely had to take on a mortgage for you to rent a house. Just because it wasn't you that took on the mortgage, doesn't mean it's any less important for you to honour your agreement and pay rent in full and on time.

We are going to end up with hundreds of thousands of people on the streets as they will not be able to get a tenancy agreement.

No we won't.

The market will find a new, higher, pricing level for bad payers to adequately provision for the risk to the landlord of renting to these people.

"Sub-prime" leases, if you like, for "sub-prime" tenants.

This could potentially create a two tier system where rental payment amounts become dependand on credit scores.

It almost certainly will.

Perhaps then you'll realise that paying rent on time is just as important as paying a mortgage on time. There is no difference.

This will also open up the rental market to abuse.

If by "abuse" you mean ensuring problem tenants pay higher rents to cover the higher risk of default, then yes.

Otherwise, not really.

How many people are happy to allow agencies to destroy their credit history due to negligence and poor data protection practices as its bad enough with the banks.

None, I'd imagine.

But that doesn't happen now either. Any mistakes can be corrected.

If this goes ahead then I think that the landlord (if mortgaged) should give details of his payment records to me too.

I have no objection to landlords signing up to a similar scheme.

In fact I'd encourage any of the reference agencies to consider setting up some form of "quality landlord" equivalent to put tenants minds at rest.