Controversy is mounting over some letting agents' and landlords' policy not to let to tenants working unreliable and unpredictable zero hours contracts.
Around 1.4 million employees in Britain are now on zero hours contracts - with the number of people employed on them having doubled since the start of the economic downturn.
The policy of not allowing these employees to become tenants - which The Guardian newspaper describes as being conducted by "many private landlords" although without an estimate of how many - has now been supported by Fergus and Judith Wilson.
Britain's best known and biggest buy-to-let landlords, the Wilsons are in the process of selling their entire portfolio of some 950 homes in the south east of England in a deal likely to net them an estimated £100m.
However, while the sale goes through they have introduced this controversial lettings policy.
Another major lettings sector figure, Ajay Jagota of north of England lettings firm KIS, accused the Wilsons of throwing perfectly good tenants out with the bathwater.
Jogata says the rise of zero hour contracts "does pose a challenge for landlord and lettings agents alike - if someone's income isn't guaranteed they could go from being your best tenants to not paying rent from one month to the next.
But he says it is inefficient to ban them completely. "Self-employed people don't have guaranteed paid hours either - are they next out the door" he asks.
.png)
Comments
Prompted by James and Mark's comments I took a look at KIS website out of curiosity.
Under the tab "For landlords" it opens with the statement "We don't sell property"
Which is a little bit odd given that the next tab is "For sale" and lists the properties that they sell.
Nuff said
ZHC's in themselves are an insult.
Mark Sterren I agree with you. I have just looked at KIS's dreadful web-site. It has Google-ads on it which is, in my opinion, appalling. Also I do not see any accreditation to CMS either.
LAT - WHY give this agent such a voice
Whilst they are certainly good as self promotion, from what I can gather KIS lettings aren't even members of any professional body and therefore probably don't carry Client Money Protection Insurance - hardly guardians of good standards in the industry. Surprised LAT takes their comments as seriously as they seem to.
Wow Mr Jagota really gets around doesn't he, opinions left, right and centre!
Kristjan my agency adopts the same policy as you regarding SE and ZCH employees in terms of guarantors and time served for SE but with the latter (ZCH) we just try to avoid.
Totally agree with this stance. How can Landlords be expected to simply accept this risk If the Government wants to offer some sort of Insurance or Security to these Landlords having championed ZHCs then fine.
As for the comment about self-employed: True there is no guarantee of income. But we wont accept anyone SE with less than 3 years trading history unless they have a Guarantor.
As an agent we have to protect our best interests. We will accept ZHCs but they must have a suitable Guarantor, or pay rent Quarterly/Bi-nnually depending on their circumstances.
These conditions do not only apply to Letting. If someone is on zero hours it affects their whole credit rating. Would they pass the new MMR requirements
Just ask your self what would you do if it was your money and house at risk
!
Well I think the Wilsons have got it right again. If we present zero hours applications to our Landlords, bearing in mind their properties are all in good order and priced sensibly so attract multiple applicants, they just say "Let us wait for the next applicant who is NOT on zero hours". Sure enough, another applicant soon comes.
Zero hour workers are a risk in letting and this business is all about risk assessment/minimising risk. I sympathise with these workers finding it hard to rent and do not necessarily agree with the principal of zero hours contracts but business is business and risk is risk.