Rent a house without a job

Hannimal

@AskAsk I am aware there is some tenant protection in place in the UK. However, having lived in 7 different countries during my short life, England by far is the worst place to live in as a tenant, closely followed by Scotland. There is some protection, sure, but a system that doesn't see housing as a human right is very skewed. I have very little sympathy for landlords when tenants are by far the most vulnerable in this equation. I do understand why you'd want to vet tenants but a system that makes it near impossible for migrants to rent out property is flawed.

mattyprice4004

eve824 said:

Just offer the 12 months upfront if you have it in the bank. Therefore no risk to the landlord.

There's still plenty of risk - they could trash the place, or refuse to move out after 12 months and cause the associated legal hassle.

I'm a landlord, and would be immediately suspicious if someone waved 12 months rent under my nose! 

AskAsk

Hannimal said:

@AskAsk I am aware there is some tenant protection in place in the UK. However, having lived in 7 different countries during my short life, England by far is the worst place to live in as a tenant, closely followed by Scotland. There is some protection, sure, but a system that doesn't see housing as a human right is very skewed. I have very little sympathy for landlords when tenants are by far the most vulnerable in this equation. I do understand why you'd want to vet tenants but a system that makes it near impossible for migrants to rent out property is flawed.

just watch some tv programs on bad tenants and you will see what i mean.
the vetting process is stringent for a reason as too many landlords have been taken advantage of by bad tenants.

eidand

Hannimal said:

@AskAsk I am aware there is some tenant protection in place in the UK. However, having lived in 7 different countries during my short life, England by far is the worst place to live in as a tenant, closely followed by Scotland. There is some protection, sure, but a system that doesn't see housing as a human right is very skewed. I have very little sympathy for landlords when tenants are by far the most vulnerable in this equation. I do understand why you'd want to vet tenants but a system that makes it near impossible for migrants to rent out property is flawed.

There are a number of incorrect statements in what you said so far.
Your main issue is that you do not work. There are lots of migrants, I know, I was one of them a long time ago.
As long as you have a stable job, a bank account, stable income then finding a place to live is not an issue. You have no roots here, no income and you could disappear whenever. That's the issue.  You are high risk.

You're not the only one with "rights". A landlord also has rights and why should they take a huge risk with you, when they can let to someone who is employed and can prove they can afford to live in their property.
Your money is not even in a UK bank.

Surely you must understand why these things are an issue.
Nothing stops you from living in a cheap holiday let. If you do not want to work here, why do you want to be here for a year? If it's sightseeing then you're not going to be living in one place anyway. So, what's the issue?

Hannimal

eidand said:

Hannimal said:

@AskAsk I am aware there is some tenant protection in place in the UK. However, having lived in 7 different countries during my short life, England by far is the worst place to live in as a tenant, closely followed by Scotland. There is some protection, sure, but a system that doesn't see housing as a human right is very skewed. I have very little sympathy for landlords when tenants are by far the most vulnerable in this equation. I do understand why you'd want to vet tenants but a system that makes it near impossible for migrants to rent out property is flawed.

There are a number of incorrect statements in what you said so far.
Your main issue is that you do not work. There are lots of migrants, I know, I was one of them a long time ago.
As long as you have a stable job, a bank account, stable income then finding a place to live is not an issue. You have no roots here, no income and you could disappear whenever. That's the issue.  You are high risk.

You're not the only one with "rights". A landlord also has rights and why should they take a huge risk with you, when they can let to someone who is employed and can prove they can afford to live in their property.
Your money is not even in a UK bank.

Surely you must understand why these things are an issue.
Nothing stops you from living in a cheap holiday let. If you do not want to work here, why do you want to be here for a year? If it's sightseeing then you're not going to be living in one place anyway. So, what's the issue?

I am not sure what you are on about but:
I have a full time job and make more than national average, my rent is  £1100 per month (fairly normal for a decent flat in the centre of the city I am in). My money is in a UK bank and another UK bank is happy to give me a mortgage (hopefully, we are still waiting on the offer!!). I have never had any problems with any payments in this country or elsewhere. I am by no definition a high risk, I am also at the moment a UK citizen - although I wasn't when I was looking to rent. Your comment to me is rude and off the mark. No idea how you can make these assumptions of me but maybe you should check what you assume of other people just because they disclose to you that they are a migrant. 

Hannimal

AskAsk said:

just watch some tv programs on bad tenants and you will see what i mean.
the vetting process is stringent for a reason as too many landlords have been taken advantage of by bad tenants.

Oh I'm not at all suggesting that they shouldn't be stringent or that there aren't bad tenants out there. I am just saying that the tenant is the one who is in a more vulnerable position. I am hoping to get a lodger once my new home is all set up and ready for it, and I am very nervous about taking someone in despite being fully aware that lodgers have even fewer rights than tenants. 

[Deleted User]

I think the answer is in your last post.  You could try airbnb.  LL's do have to protect against tenants who will cause damage etc.  I am sorry you are having such difficulties.  If you find the UK so disappointing in this way, and there are no solutions, I hope you are able to find somewhere more accommodating.  Unfortunately I think you might find similar problems in a lot of Europe.  I can't see it changing in the near future because properties cost hundreds of thousands and LL's do have to make sure a tenant will look after it. I'm not saying you won't.., but how is a LL to judge that?

[Deleted User]

Hannimal said:

AskAsk said:

just watch some tv programs on bad tenants and you will see what i mean.
the vetting process is stringent for a reason as too many landlords have been taken advantage of by bad tenants.

Oh I'm not at all suggesting that they shouldn't be stringent or that there aren't bad tenants out there. I am just saying that the tenant is the one who is in a more vulnerable position. I am hoping to get a lodger once my new home is all set up and ready for it, and I am very nervous about taking someone in despite being fully aware that lodgers have even fewer rights than tenants. 

The problem is that for those organisations advocating for the rights of vulnerable tenants, their policies tend towards hampering landlords in their attempts for fast and efficient eviction processes. This protects vulnerable tenants from eviction.
But there is a consequence to this in that landlords must be very selective as to their tenants to avoid the world of pain that is the drawn out eviction processes and financial loss that would occur from a non paying tenant.  This means that some vulnerable tenants struggle to get a tenancy.
So I would argue that it is the very protections that tenants are afforded that cause landlords to be more careful. In general the sector will only be able to relax the critiera for tenants if eviction and court processes are more efficeint and faster.
In regard to the original post I suggest that becomming a lodger would solve this problem.

saajan_12

Without getting into how the gvt should run things, practically OP I think there could be 3 issues: Here are the practical ways I can think to offset these:

a) some agents just stick to a script for referencing, and don't bother or don't have the mandate to evaluate risk case by case --> you could try approaching landlords who self-manage, eg via Openrent. 

b) concern that £50k now may be a temporary windfall or just transferred in temporarily for the sake of references, and could be spent or transferred out soon --> you could offer 12 months rent upfront or a guarantor. With the guarantor, you could pay them the 6 or 12 months worth of rent, so they can pay the rent. That way, they know they have the money upfront and won't be out of pocket. 

c) Aside from affordability, you have no ties to the UK. So you'll be a short term tenant meaning more voids for the landlord and if there is any rent / damages left owing, you'll be hard to sue out of the country. --> This is a reality, not much you can do other than offer a higher rent (ie more reward for more risk). 

Hannimal

[Deleted User] said:

In regard to the original post I suggest that becomming a lodger would solve this problem.

This or a flatshare tend to be the options actually available for migrants. Or looking to rent somewhere where finding a tenant is not easy - this is outside cities and towns typically.