No one is saying furloughed people are bad people or that they don’t deserve housing. That’s not what this is about.
Being a landlord is generally about maintaining a steady rental flow. It is not about providing housing as a social service to those who might be very nice, very deserving but who lack a secure income now or very likely in future, with the result rent might not be paid.
The furloughed might have a job in future...or sadly not and therefore struggle with rent.....and Op is not cruel or unkind not to want to get involved in that. Op can feel very sympathetic for those who are furloughed and have job insecurity....but that does not have to mean putting herself at financial risk.
Most LLs understandably want the most financially secure tenants. It’s why affordability referencing happens. Why would anyone choose a tenant who fails that referencing which gives a higher risk of the rent not being paid, over someone who is much more secure and low risk? No one is risk free as anyone can have a change of financial circumstances, but you have to weigh risk and a furloughed person poses more risk at the moment. Risk is best avoided when it can be.
If there were no alternative tenants and a guarantor appeared I would consider this person. Thanks f there was no guarantor I wouldn’t and would leave the property empty.
To those crying ‘outrage’ do you know the costs that can be incurred in evicting a non-paying tenant or in terms of lost rental? It can be many thousands as many have found to their loss. And that’s why LLs are usually risk averse and want the safe option, because quite sensibly they want to avoid the huge potential costs of a non paying or only partly paying tenant.
When your existing tenant finds their circumstances change, you work with them to help and make it work into the long term for both of you - rent deferrals, possible reduction etc. It still all costs you money. However you don’t choose to start from that position and say yes to someone who will fail the affordability tests, especially when there are other secure buyers.
If you were in a sofa showroom selling sofas on credit, would you rather sell to the person who passed a credit check and was therefore very likely to pay each month, or the one who failed it, meaning there was a higher possibility they might not be able to pay, regardless of reason. Or would you say ‘tell me why you’ve failed the check - yes I can see hard times have fallen on you which were not your fault at all, so you can have the sofa anyway instead of that other person, because actually I don’t mind taking the risk because you seem so nice’ ??