Doing this on a smartphone abroad (fat fingers, small keyboard, almost too bright to see the screen… excuse me while I adjust my halo…) so will rattle out a reply and hope is of some help at least.
In brief, ask vetting questions/obtain suitable ‘evidence of potential viability’ such as the examples below and well before both parties decide worth proceeding to a formal referencing.
A list of some suggestions for all adult tenant applicants follows:
1 Current home address and if rented
2. How long there/reason for moving
3. Place of work
4. Job description
5. How long there
6. How contracted
7. If wish to proceed to application once having viewed, able/willing to provide proof of income at that point? (suggest last 6 consecutive months: pay slips or bank statements.) *
8. To proceed towards tenancy, would you be able to provide satisfactory employer/landlord references.
As I said, not an exhaustive list but, under the current, ridiculous legislation where formal referencing is now on our tab, it is absolutely the landlords prerogative to do initial checks for themselves. If you are happy with how things go (and look for early signs of resistance or objection and if you sense it, reject) I would generally still recommend that you invest in formal referencing. Most people are unaware how to check for current/satisfied ccj’s (County Court judgements - where a court has ordered that they pay a debt, the victim having had to go to court to try to reclaim it) This is a critical check of integrity. Do not skip it.
Formal referencing takes care of this.
In my experience, an applicant with an active ccj or more than one ccj no matter whether still active or not, is an ABSOLUTE NO-NO.
Not only have they taken goods or services as their own, they have in effect forced the person who trusted them to proceed legally simply to get their money back. You will hear the best of stories from the very best of fraudsters.
In all cases, ask applicants early on -and before you bother with anything else- if they have any active or satisfied ccj’s, however. Again, in my experience, some proven bad-debtors will lie hoping you won’t actually do the necessary checks.
I had a couple who admitted to one active (current) and one satisfied ccj (now paid, by order of a court). They clearly thought I would be disarmed by their honesty. They actually had, between them, 6 live and 3 satisfied ccj’s. And guess what… they had offered to pay 6 months up front. What fun I would have had from month seven.
Bad-debtors and liars go hand in hand.
The applicants should have been advised as a courtesy that landlords now more likely do initial vetting checks themselves and prior to formal referencing because of this being a new expense now put on them. Initial checks help minimise unecessary expense and potential time wasting of both parties.
Finally and as just intimated by example, do not be wooed by an offer to pay, for example, 6 months up front. It is an entirely different scenario, however, should you decide to require that of them. You are always better off with a simpler scenario, rent paid monthly by full time tenants in a family unit. It’s a red flag not a free lunch. I used to see it the other way, out of greed.
In my experience (landlord in UK and, more recently Spain since 1997) an offer of an up front payment is almost inevitably because there are issues which may well bite you on the ar*e as you approach the time when you need regular payment from them. My advice? Don’t jump at their invitation. But, in some cases, consider it as a requirement. Your prerogative. You assess based on perceived risk; the landlord still calls the shots here, at least for now.
But, if on your terms, require 3 months to always be in credit I.e. having paid 6 months up front, they agree to pay the usual monthly rental amount just prior to end of month 3.
Hope helps. Excuse any errors or typos!
Peter B
Landlord
Member NLA
Reg ICO
*If you decide to retain copies of bank statements or passports and other obviously private and personally identifiable info., you will need to registered with ICO - Information Commissioners Office- as a ‘data controller.’ Its not complicated to register (costs in region of £40 or year now, I think) but if it sounds like too much hassle, fair enough. I see no reason to retain copies of statements pay slips and I also feel that, on balance, that can only feel overly intrusive. There is a certain reassurance by making clear you won’t be retaining anything (other than as now required under Right to Rent Act) but you just need sight of proof of income, for example. You can ‘look but not retain’ without registering under current guidelines but check this because DPA (Data Protection Act) legislation changes in an instant and because I won’t know when you are reading this.
I am registered with ICO because I do retain photo images of their passport photo pages. Plus… I know I’m covered should I wish to keep a copy of anything else which I sometimes choose to. To be accused of data breaches can be more frightening than you think, I imagine.
**David 17 also makes some good points and suggestions.
Good luck out there.
***