By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Agents circulated with 'banned list' by Britain's biggest landlords

The couple believed to be the owners of Britain’s largest buy to let portfolio have defended sending letting agents an 11-point list of people who should be banned from taking up tenancies of their properties.

Fergus and Judith Wilson - whose estimated 1,000 property portfolio, mostly located in Kent, has featured in many Letting Agent Today stories - are in the process of selling at least some of their apartments and houses, but say families and single parents pose a problem as it can take up to 13 months to get a possession order if he decides to dispose of the properties they occupy.

The 11-point list, published in some national newspapers, reads as follows:


Letting Criteria from January 1 2017

Like any business we are consistently fine-tuning to best advantage.

The following are not acceptable:-

1) Tenants with children under 18. A child over 18 can be a co-tenant.

2) Only tenants with a Rent Guarantee

3) No Single Mums or Single Fathers

4) No tenants on Housing Benefit

5) No low income workers

6) No single adults

7) No Zero hours workers

8) No Plumbers

9) No battered wives

10) No Smokers

11) No tenants with pets.

Both tenants names to go on the Tenancy! Take National Insurance numbers. Take car numbers. Take details of employment.

Fergus Wilson


In the Daily Telegraph, Fergus Wilson is quoted defending the list by saying: “We do a letting criteria every year, and like four out of five landlords we don't accept those on low incomes and housing benefit.

“The average salary in Ashford is £23,000, but with average rents and to provide a rent guarantee someone would need to be earning at least £30,000 a year for our properties.

“The system is against single people, but most of my properties are family homes. We don't have one-bedroom flats.

“We have said nothing against lesbians and homosexuals or coloureds [sic]. As long as they can pay the rent. We are in business to make money so we make a selection based on a sensible business plan.

“If ever a person came in wearing pink socks and defaulted on rent, and it became a regular problem, then we would stop renting to people who wear pink socks.”

  • icon

    Oh dear Graham what happened to points 1 & 2 above? I said in the previous post it's now time to engage brain!

    However I agree with these landlords in being selective and they have the right combination to be a success and this is proven this with a 1,000 strong portfolio.

  • icon

    Point 9 is a disgrace


    They/we landlords owe nobody nothing. A battered wife has not caused her situation, but they are likely to have trouble follow them. Unfair it may be, but I wouldn't take a risk on anyone who would cause me any form of headache. If social services and council housing did their bloody job properly, these vulnerable people would not be discharged to the PRS. No charity here!


    Having said all of that, I'm baffled by number 8. Perhaps it's because they attempt repairs themselves...


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up