Can't believe no friends will act as guarantors - why do they think they have to pay?

[IWillAlwaysBeinaClubWithYouin1973]

I mean do they literally think I am going to refuse to pay my rent?

Split from H last year, my home of over 30 was sold I have the equity in the bank still because I've just pulled out of a house purchase and decided to continue renting. Found a new flat within days now I am actually scared I'm not going to get it, nor anything else to rent, unless I have a guarantor. New letting agents/landlord not accepting equity, they want a guarantor as well as 6 months in advance.

I've just stood guarantor for my youngest DD and her uni flatmate, didn't think twice. I know what's involved, I would have thought it's obvious you assume the person will pay their rent - surely you just use your judgement? But had some awkward conversations with friends - we're all professional people, but they actually they think its going to affect their credit rating, ability to get a mortgage and that it will "stretch them financially"? I work, have the equity from the house in the bank, I'm 60 bloody 2! How much of a flight risk do I appear to these friends?! So far 2 said no, 2 ghosting me, I need to provide info to the agent first thing in the morning. Going to move on further down my list but it's getting more and more tenuous. I feel a bit sick to be honest.

Do you know what a guarantor is/does or would you too think you stood a reasonable chance of losing £000s, or even that I was actually asking for money in some way? Is it something that people just don't feel comfortable to do?

Exactly, that's why very few people will agree to be a guarantor. And why someone like the OP who isn't 22 with working age homeowner parents, but 62 and perfectly capable of paying her own rent, can't find anyone willing to do this.

The law needs to give people like the OP more rights. It's a form of discrimination.

There’s no one right answer. If you make it harder to evict, landlords will become pickier about tenants eg wanting a very high level of income cover and/or a guarantor. If it’s not possible to find tenants at an acceptable risk/return basis, landlords will start giving notice and selling up before doing so gets even harder. Which will reduce the available rental stock, when rental stock plays a part in a healthy market.

There are multiple routes the government could take to address the issue - building council houses or paying housing benefit to landlords are two I can think of.

For whatever reason, they won’t do it and private landlords aren’t willing to fill the gap. If smaller landlords do sell up, there will be huge companies owning multiple properties who will have set (strict) criteria for each property and guarantors will be required more often, not less.

There's no magic money tree.

I don't see why the taxpayer should step in to solve the problem of landlords who want to earn passive income from people less well off than themselves but take zero risk.

It's easier and cheaper to legislate to say you can't require someone to have a guarantor without a good reason.

I think you could make a strong case to say it's indirect age related discrimination.

The law needs to give people like the OP more rights. It's a form of discrimination.

It is because renters have more rights now in respect of an eviction (not a bad thing in itself but the process for eviction for non payment should be quicker) that landlords are being more picky about tenants. And it’s not discrimination, in the sense of a protected characteristic, to offer a financial product - a lease - to the person you think is best able to afford it.

I’d only do it for my kids. If i do it for anytime else I’m risking them.

Age is a protected characteristic.

I think you could argue that it is indirect discrimination on grounds of age to require all renters to have a guarantor regardless of their financial circumstances because most people will only act as guarantors for their own children. That means most renters will naturally age out of being able to find a guarantor by the time they are about 30/their parents retire.

I think you could make a strong case to say it's indirect age related discrimination.

I doubt you could, because you could also argue that an older person is more likely to be in a senior career and qualify on salary grounds.

And honestly, whilst many on the thread have said they would stand guarantor to their child, that’s probably thinking of a student or first job flat. If said child is divorcing at the age of 45, would they necessarily have a parent earning at a sufficient level to be a guarantor then?

We had to claim £6000 for unpaid rent, stolen appliances and legal fees from our tenants guarantor
I don't expect they ever though their son and DIL would default on their rent or steal from us -- or that they would be liable if they did.

That means most renters will naturally age out of being able to find a guarantor by the time they are about 30/their parents retire.

If a condition applies indirectly from 30-death, for a “product” that only 18+ can access, i am not sure that would qualify as age discrimination! Plus of course plenty of us don’t earn enough to qualify as guarantors to our kids - regardless of their ages - given mortgages or rent and other life expenses we are incurring.

People from all over uk are now reporting lots of rentals going (like 5 next to ech other on a street) o landlors are dumping smaller portfolios. To be honest many have been since past covid.
No one small will be able to afford the risks, so yes, you are right. Corporate will get it. Andgood luck to anyone ever trying to bring these back into sale market after

Pretty sure ours didn’t - when the 12 months was up, it went to another 12 month tenancy.

That's an option. But if either party doesn't want to sign another fixed term contract then it becomes periodic.

I wouldn’t be. Still working full time, have a reasonable income and savings.