KG1913 Posted February 12 Report Share Posted February 12 Hi, Could anyone explain and educate me of any implications for landlords to take foster carer tenants please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grampa Posted February 12 Report Share Posted February 12 I don't think there are any real extra implications regarding the tenancy. I assume you are talking about 2 adult tenants who would be on the tenancy agreement who foster children under the age of 18. If so it would be treated in the same manner as normal. You may want to make it a requirement that you are informed in writing of the names of any children for your records. The only negative I could foresee is from past experience of a couple of people I know who have fostered, the children can come with very troubled back grounds which can come with serious behaviour issues and potential damage. However, if I was the landlord I wouldn't allow the possibility of that to cause me to refuse permission. It is a very commendable (and lucrative) thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted February 12 Report Share Posted February 12 It would be worth checking to see if it affects insurance premiums, breaches mortgage conditions or affects any permissions to let from the freeholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acura Posted February 13 Report Share Posted February 13 We had foster carers as tenants and I don’t remember any specific requirements other than the norm as their foster children were under 18. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fionaf Posted February 18 Report Share Posted February 18 I had a single mother who said she was also a foster carer. She had one child of her own. Foster children had to have their own bedroom. She was renting a property from me that had three bedrooms but didn't get the right amount of benefits to cover that so was relying on the foster income to allow for the rent. I got a reference from the foster agency saying that this shortfall would be more than covered as part of my affordability checks. This was in my naive days when I was early on renting out properties. Turns out the reference wasn't worth the paper it was written on as what they didn't point out was that she had never fostered before and then when she tried to do the assessments and trial placements 'didn't like it' and so she left the property after the initial six months. I wasn't out of pocket but it has made me wary going forward. I think an established foster carer (now knowing the questions to ask) would be different. A friend who lives near a foster home has regaled me with whilst how lovely the foster parents are, not so much the estranged parents who make it 'challenging' for all within five doors of the foster home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted February 19 Report Share Posted February 19 I have never understood the attraction of trying to let a property to an applicant who doesn't conform to normal tenant standards, in this case, a foster carer. The whole country has a very large number of people looking for a tenancy at the same time as the whole country has an enormous shortage of suitable property. The result is that under normal circumstances there are lots of applicants, many of whom will easily meet a landlords criteria. Unless there is some financial incentive e.g. higher rents, why would anyone consider letting to anyone with increased risks in favour of all the other suitable applicants. The days of advertising a property and letting it go the first person who shows an interest have long gone. I had a long list of people who I wouldn't let to. I've posted that list on here before: Property not let to ......smokers, pet owners, non English speakers, anyone with children, in receipt of housing or disability benefits, Company lettings, anything that results on overcrowding, people running a business from the property, long lead times for moving in, disabled or infirm, non working tenants, under 25, anyone with poor refs or who don't qualify for RGI, lettings for less than 6 months, self employed with less than 3 years of audited accounts, shift or night workers, anyone in dirty trades, same sex couples, no 12 months in advance applicants etc.....and in spite of that long list I rarely had a problem finding suitable tenants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acura Posted February 19 Report Share Posted February 19 8 minutes ago, Richlist said: I have never understood the attraction of trying to let a property to an applicant who doesn't conform to normal tenant standards, in this case, a foster carer. The whole country has a very large number of people looking for a tenancy at the same time as the whole country has an enormous shortage of suitable property. The result is that under normal circumstances there are lots of applicants, many of whom will easily meet a landlords criteria. Unless there is some financial incentive e.g. higher rents, why would anyone consider letting to anyone with increased risks in favour of all the other suitable applicants. The days of advertising a property and letting it go the first person who shows an interest have long gone. I had a long list of people who I wouldn't let to. I've posted that list on here before: Property not let to ......smokers, pet owners, non English speakers, anyone with children, in receipt of housing or disability benefits, Company lettings, anything that results on overcrowding, people running a business from the property, long lead times for moving in, disabled or infirm, non working tenants, under 25, anyone with poor refs or who don't qualify for RGI, lettings for less than 6 months, self employed with less than 3 years of audited accounts, shift or night workers, anyone in dirty trades, same sex couples, no 12 months in advance applicants etc..... Didn’t think we were allowed to discriminate or disallow any of those in your list Richlist 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted February 20 Report Share Posted February 20 Yes I agree, some of the restrictions on my list are not allowed on a purely discrimination basis. But I am creative enough to have never had a problem finding a totally legitimate reason to refuse them a tenancy.........that's not discrimination, that's the applicant not meeting my criteria. As you probably appreciate, it's entirely acceptable for landlords to require applicants to meet RGI requirements &/or to provide good references or a home owning guarantor or to meet the age restrictions etc, etc. There are also restrictions set by freeholders, managing agents, mortgage lenders and insurance providers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted February 20 Report Share Posted February 20 RL, don't you discriminate against all tenants these days? I'm hoping to do the same as soon as I've sold mine. The properties that is, as we know we've to pay to dispose of tenants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted February 20 Report Share Posted February 20 Quite right. My lettings Agents (who I nearly always used to find me tenants) didn't deal with anyone on housing benefits. So, if I had someone apply through my own private advertising who was on housing benefits I would always direct them to my lettings Agents. As the Agents would dismiss them I knew I'd never see them again. Why didn't my Agents deal with anyone on housing benefits/ how did they get away with it ????? My Agents business model was designed to offer all their landlords with rent guarantee insurance, designed by them, for them and underwritten by them. They weren't going to accept tenants on h/benefits onto their insurance cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grampa Posted February 20 Report Share Posted February 20 My job as a agent and landlord is to find the best tenant possible and highlight any possible risks and always assume the worst will happened before granting any tenancy. However, not being located in a major urban area means we do have to deal with some tenants in receipt of benefits and have done very successfully. I avoid single people under 35 as they don’t receive full one bedroom allowance only a reduced lodger allowance, not keen of youngish men as their circumstances can change regularly and therefore any rent payments. Young single mums are not ideal unless there is a lot of family support and guarantors in place. Plus not only are the usual reference agencies used we take it one step further with a very in-depth application form and also see sight of 4 months bank statements. Bank statements give a huge insight to people and people are happy to provide them. I have found big corporate agents just use a third-party reference company and don’t dig down much further. I brough a BTL from a couple of big corporate agents without telling them what I do and have been pretty much disgusted by their pressure tactics of trying to pressure you into taking unsuitable tenants even more so if they are just on tenant find service only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted February 20 Report Share Posted February 20 I've heard a few landlords, including yourself Grampa, previously say that they have let to benefits tenants successfully. I think it's more of a problem for new or inexperienced landlords. We have all heard of and read of people entering the business thinking they can handle everything themselves without any problems.......we know that's not always the case. In spite of me using my Agents as a tenant find service, I was always very, very picky when selecting tenants. I wouldn't hesitate to find some excuse to reject anyone who wasn't suitable 'in my opinion'. My Agents knew what I was like and filtered many before they viewed the property. However, I'm sure that other landlords on their books who were less discerning were sent applicants who weren't the best. As my Agents provided RGI they did of course have a vested interest in only providing those that 'ticked all the boxes'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grampa Posted February 20 Report Share Posted February 20 3 hours ago, Richlist said: I think it's more of a problem for new or inexperienced landlords. We have all heard of and read of people entering the business thinking they can handle everything themselves without any problems.......we know that's not always the case. You have hit the nail on the head there RL. You only need to watch those nightmare tenants programs to see that 99% of the landlords shown with bad tenants either did a "tenant find" only with a agent or self-managed themselves. from the start That is not to say as a agent you dont still very rarely get a problem but thats the nature of the business. If you wanted an investment 100% safe you stick your cash in the Post Office. (not the best analogy). We have a current benefit tenant above our office we have just had to go through the court process (rent arrears) and the bailiff is booked for next week. However as we work with the council regularly we knew there was a possibility of getting the council to pay the arrears and court costs which we have had confirmation of today. Its cheaper for the council to do that than pay for emergency housing. All further benefits will be coming to us and if for what ever reason arrears becomes a problem again we go through the process again but a lot faster without the arrears getting to the level they did. We chose to take this higher than normal risk tenant in the first place as its our property and have had this "hard to rent" property tenanted for the last 4+ years at a reasonable rent so cant complain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.