To think this could be bad news for some private renters

[ShortSighted101]

Doesn't this just mean that anyone with a poor credit rating or county court judgment will no longer be able to secure a private rental by paying a few months upfront?

A bit like when they banned extra deposits for pets and then suddenly people with pets found it harder to find somewhere to rent.

www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jan/14/landlords-england-wales-upfront-charges-renters-rights-bill

I think it refers to the deposit - it's not really clear. If it does, it won't be much different to now - a max of 5 weeks rent. I'm pretty sure paying a few months rent in advance could be agreed and done outside of this new law. However, if guarantors are no longer obliged to cover unpaid rent, I doubt many landlords will take a chance on potential tenants with poor credit ratings, regardless of how much rent they're willing to advance..

No it means you won't be able to pay more than one month rent in advance. It won't be legally possible to have that arrangement with a landlord.

Deposits are already capped at five weeks, hence the pet issue.

Surely landlords would have to be less fussy with who they rent too. It will end budding wars on properties too.

I wouldn’t be less fussy. It’s just another reason for landlords to sell up.

When my partner and I were first trying to rent, they wouldn't rent to us cause we didn't have a guarantor. Our parents are pensioners, so they wouldn't accept them (even though they're relatively well off). My brothers live in a foreign country, so they were not accepted. And neither of us had the type of friends that you could ask something like this. Cause who would agree to sign? We offered 6 months' rent and they did consider that but apparently that felt iffy. Finally, in the end, they accepted it because my partner is a homeowner and would be renting put his house, and therefore, we were worthy tenants.

It wouldn’t be the first well intentioned idea that actually disadvantages some people most in need.
As a landlord I had someone who had failed all normal checks with letting agents ( back in the days when they were allowed to charge for checks), but as she could pay 6 months up front, I decided to take a chance. Time has shown her to be a great tenant - but I had no way to know that in advance, and it wouldn’t have been a risk I was willing to take back then without the advance payment.

I definitely wouldn’t take the risk now, although it’s a moot point as if she ever decides to leave I will be selling.

This feels like a bad idea for renters and landlords. It takes one solution off the table for people in unusual situations.

At the very least, it's swings and roundabouts. There will be tenants who now get to rent without having to pay a lot up front, and tenants who now don't get to rent at all. It's not clear that that's better overall.

I'd have more faith if the minister presented it as such and explained why that's the best policy. But presenting it as a straightforward win for renters makes me think Raynor either doesn't understand how markets work, or she does but thinks her electors don't.

As it stands landlords can ask for multiple months rent up front from anyone and get involved with bidding wars, and do whatever to maximise their revenue and turn a profit asap. Bad credit or CCJs isn’t the influencing factor. They can take advantage of people renting generally eg say there are low amounts of rental properties in the area, landlords ask applicants to pay X amount extra upfront to secure the property, knowing there aren’t alternative options for applicants who would therefore end up paying a huge bill. It’s unregulated so they can do this. This new law is trying to regulate such practices.

Ultimately landlords can already refuse to rent to people as it stands, before any changes in the law are implemented. Realistically they already do not want to let to someone with bad credit or CCJs. If they had the choice between poor credit, or an applicant without those issues, they would choose the good credit applicant. However they may still ask the good credit applicant to pay extra upfront to secure it - it’s that kind of thing the law intends to regulate.

It’s a silly argument to say the law disadvantages people with bad credit as the government can’t force landlords to rent to them. Plus it’s likely that someone with bad credit or CCJs does not have the disposable funds to pay lots upfront anyway as they are likely already in debt. Ultimately it is the government’s responsibility to provide housing, not private landlords.

You reference unusual situations but the law cannot reference and account for every single situation and all “what ifs”. Instead, they likely have data to show what common scenarios are, which then influences changes. It is totally feasible their data shows that “unusual situations” are uncommon enough to not need to be caveated in law, but the usual situation ie more common application, does need to be regulated by law.

The proposed changes benefit both landlords and renters. For example there’s new reasons to evict such as antisocial behaviour or persistent rent arrears and changes to court processes which makes evicting difficult tenants easier for landlords. It’s not about it being only a win for renters.

People who rent, definitely shouldn’t see it that way either and should carry out due diligence. There definitely can be ways landlords benefit from the new law, especially as the lawmakers likely include people with a vested interest.

@MJconfessions

The issue is, I think, that this disadvantages people who look bad on paper but do in fact have savings (they can no longer offer money up front to reassure the landlord, and may not get to rent as a result).

It advantages people who don't have savings but do look good on paper (for the converse reason).

So, people in group A may be foreigners, people with CCJs, people subject to discriminatory attitudes, etc. And group B people on low (or standard) incomes but just no savings.

It feels too crude to say that disadvantaging A to help B is obviously socially good.

I think that unless there are issues passing the checks rental contracts don't require more than a month's rent up front anyway. So people with good credit histories should be in a good position to rent either way (or as good a position as you can be given the shortage of properties)

However if you have a previous county court judgment or a poor credit rating I am not sure what you will now do. Maybe become a lodger?