Couple renting, credit of one good, the other bad

happinessfactory

As someone who has herself been unfairly penalised by inaccurate reporting on credit checks, I have some sympathy for would-be tenants who can't rent flats because of poor credit records.

Back when we used to rent out this flat I would always interview prospective tenants and obtain credit checks from all three credit providers *before* letting them sign the tenancy. If anything came up (it very often did) I would always give them the opportunity to explain them and then I'd take a view as to whether or not I believed them...

Having said all of that, I'd never touch anyone with a CCJ.

They really aren't handed out willy-nilly or accidentally, and you're given a very long time to repay the debt / correct the reporting before they're tabled. It says a lot about someone's financial reliability - or lack of it - if they have one. Particularly for a small amount of money when they claim to earn a fair bit:rolleyes:

GFBrown

I'm in no doubt that tenants with bad credit aren't desirable; however, the point is why is it not possible to have a contract where one party of the couple takes full responsibilty for the rent, and in the case of the couple separating only the rent-responsible party can remain in the property? I have good credit and can cover the rent; my partner's bad credit does not affect my ability to pay the rent. If we break up, then he would not be able to remain in the property. Can anyone explain why such agreements do not exist? Again, my point was that in comparison to a single occupant, a couple is less of a risk (if such an agreement existed).

happinessfactory

Benabongo wrote: »

two CCJs from store cards that, due to an administrative failing, were not paid whilst I was on a career break/travelling in Australia two years ago.

Ability to pay: Rent and bills for the property are c. 25% of my net monthly earnings, and another c. 25% would meet all my debt repayments.

Two store-cards carrying sufficient debt that repaying them takes up a quarter of your take-home each month?

That must have been some 'administrative failing'...

GFBrown

happinessfactory wrote: »

Two store-cards carrying sufficient debt that repaying them takes up a quarter of your take-home each month?

That must have been some 'administrative failing'...

Thank you for the constructive comment. Whatever my partner's history, it should not affect my ability to take responsibility for the rental of our home.

happinessfactory

GFBrown wrote: »

Whatever my partner's history, it should not affect my ability to take responsibility for the rental of our home.

Unfortunately, it does. If you have ever seen a credit report it includes the details of everyone connected to you at that address and it can make alarming reading for a landlord.

And calling failure to repay debts for two years an 'administrative failing' doesn't make it sound as if your partner takes paying money back very seriously - which sets more alarm bells ringing.

As Scoff has advised, money talks and most people will accept 6 months' rental payments up front.

You can try agencies as they're often not quite as careful in selecting tenants as landlords managing their own properties.

GFBrown

Exactly -the point is that my credit rating should not be affected by events of others years ago. I am more than aware that this is the case but it is allarmingly illogical. Since when did we lose our ability to use reason and logic?

In reality I can pay the rent and have every supporting document to prove this. A number of forms and out-of-context cross references are leading the letting agents to come to the conclusion that I am a risk...when the facts are that I can, have always, paid everything I've ever owed.

I must say that you're making assumptions about my partner's credit that are inaccurate but more so irrelevant to the point in hand.

At present we rent a flat and have had nothing but support from our landlord - perhaps because he sees us as humans...I was alarmed to read that one landlord boasted he would rather turn a pregnant woman onto the street than have her remain in his property. How utterly shameful.

happinessfactory

GFBrown wrote: »

I must say that you're making assumptions about my partner's credit that are inaccurate but more so irrelevant to the point in hand.

If I'm making inaccurate assumptions then I sincerely apologise; but I made my assumptions based on what your partner posted.

He called his CCJs an "administrative failing", yet the fact that his debts are clearly large enough to require a quarter of his net pay each month suggests they were also large enough to not be accidentally forgotten in the rush of going off to the other side of the world for two years.

If I haven't grasped the facts correctly than I'm sorry, but that's how they read at the moment.

And the circumstances of his debt are indeed relevant to the point in hand because if two people want to live in one house they BOTH need to be honest and financially trustworthy - whether the tenancy is in one name or both. I think your idea about changing the contract wording so only the rent-responsible person is allowed to remain in the property is a good one, but I think it's highly unlikely you'll find a private landlord who'll agree to it, for the reasons already mentioned.

happinessfactory

GFBrown wrote: »

I was alarmed to read that one landlord boasted he would rather turn a pregnant woman onto the street than have her remain in his property. How utterly shameful.

Boasting? Really? Where did you read that?

And anyway, his attitude to pregnant women really is irrelevant to your problem. At the end of the day, it's his house and he can do what he likes with it. As can any other landlord. Some of them will have more lax criteria than others and I'm sure you'll find a place you like.

CYBERCIDERSAVER

I like the idea mentioned earlier about paying rent upfront.
Surely then any defaults/ccjs are irrelevant?

Could the op afford that??

inmypocketnottheirs

GFBrown wrote: »

I'm in no doubt that tenants with bad credit aren't desirable; however, the point is why is it not possible to have a contract where one party of the couple takes full responsibilty for the rent, and in the case of the couple separating only the rent-responsible party can remain in the property? I have good credit and can cover the rent; my partner's bad credit does not affect my ability to pay the rent. If we break up, then he would not be able to remain in the property. Can anyone explain why such agreements do not exist? Again, my point was that in comparison to a single occupant, a couple is less of a risk (if such an agreement existed).

In an ideal world. yes. But in the real world, no. Why? Because how can a landlord be 100% certain that the rent responsible person will be the one that stays? Lets just assume (the rent responsible person we shall call A and the other party that A&B move in with a lovely relationship. B then starts having an affair with the next door neighbour (C) whilst A is at work. C is also in rented accomodation, whose landlord has served a Section 21 notice as he is returning from working abroad and wants to now move back into C's property. C has just received a redundancy notice from work. A is offered the opportunity of promotion the other end of the country. C then moves in with B. How does the landlord now get possession of the property? He has a tenant with bad credit that then moves A N Other into his property that is not on the agreement, who likely would not meet the landlords letting criteria.

In truth the whole point here is, a landlord has the choice of who he lets to, within a framework. Also residential landlords have very little protection from rogue tenants. Tenants have far more protection in law than landlords.

In the past I have had a tenant move in, paid 1 months rent and 1 months deposit, then nothing more. It took six months then to get the tenant out, and I lost rental income and incurred expenses.

So now, I use a rental protection scheme. This means that I insure my tenants, so that if they don't pay, I still receive my rent until the tenant is evicted and a new tenant found. My legal fees are also covered. In order for me to get this protection, the company that administer the scheme have to approve the tenants, and part of the process is credit checking. Any CCJ's = no insurance.

Why should I take the risk?

I make the choice to invest in being a landlord, I take the choice in who I allow to live there.

My properties let very quickly, they are well maintained and in very desirable areas.

There are less desirable properties in lesser areas, and these landlords are often less demanding. So you have a choice. You will find somewhere to live but it may not be to your standards. But don't expect a landlord to be sympathetic to a track record that shows payment problems. I suggested before offering 6 months rent in advance, that is an option that most landlords will consider.