Renting flat in Scotland

Great thread!  Good work Sirius, I have it on good advice that they haven’t even read the 2003 Sexual Offences Act and therefore are sheep shaggers as well. 

Can we get over this fetish of “Reading the law”?  Most people rely on the interpretations of others, mixed with advice and experience from paid proffesionals.  That’s what I pay my accountant for.  I might occasionally read parts that pertain to my situation, but reading some legislation does not magically make you an expert.  It’s not a spell. 

It's the laws that we go by. I get that there are people who perhaps think that some laws shouldn't apply to them, but... they do.

The good news is that, as already said, this only going to affect the finances of the landlords who don't know the laws of the business they run. Ignorantia legis neminem excusa.

IMO, the above seems clear on this.  The way I read it is - as a landlord, you don't HAVE to request rent in a lump sum for tenants without a UK credit history, but you are PERMITTED TO DO SO within reason (e.g. not charging for more than would be ordinarily paid for the length of the tenancy).

Honestly, your answer was spot on but it doesn't really matter what makes sense and seems clear because you're dealing with a human being that doesn't know how to admit they're wrong and will take that fight to their grave. What you've interpreted is correct (unless Sirius would like to give her interpretation to show us otherwise and would like to reference the court cases where this was proven to be ruled illegal, but I wouldn't hold your breath as you'll likely get "it's all there for you to read and if you don't want to be informed that's up to you " or something along those lines).

I'm not a landlord, so full disclaimer to begin with, but it does read to me (from the linked legislation) that someone without a UK credit history CAN be charged for rent covering multiple months (as long as not exceeding the term of the rental agreement) in a single upfront lump sum. 

From experience, when I first moved to the UK, I was explicitly informed that the only reason I wasn't being asked to provide anywhere from 3 to 6 months rent upfront as a single lump sum payment was due to my UK spouse who did have a UK credit history.  If I had been looking as a single person newly moved to the UK without UK credit history, I would very likely have been required to pay several months rent upfront.

Q. Can I ask a tenant to pay rent upfront if they don’t have a suitable guarantor or reference checks?

Yes. You could ask a tenant to pay their rent in a lump sum but should consider if this is necessary and affordable for the tenant. You cannot charge any more in an up-front lump sum payment than would have been chargeable over the fixed-term of the tenancy.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/791273/TFA_Guidance_for_LandlordsAgents.pdf

IMO, the above seems clear on this.  The way I read it is - as a landlord, you don't HAVE to request rent in a lump sum for tenants without a UK credit history, but you are PERMITTED TO DO SO within reason (e.g. not charging for more than would be ordinarily paid for the length of the tenancy).

For those moving to the UK without a UK credit history, I would recommend to be prepared to pay 6 months rent upfront.  You might not have to (which would be fab), but it appears you could be asked to do so.

Of course, it's up to the landlord. I am a pensioner, and emailed my current landlord before moving over to discuss the issue, if I chose to rent their flat. I "pre-vetted" by sending over the required application and proof of income so I was able to view the flat on one day and sign the lease on the next. They only requested the first month's rent and a security deposit of just slightly over that amount, when we sat down to sign the lease.

The security deposit is being held by a third-party entity that insures that it is not mis-used.  https://www.safedepositsscotland.com/landlord-information

There was one rental agency we dealt with here who did try to scam us into paying several months' rent in advance, and saying that it was considered as a security deposit that they would hold onto until we moved out. They did not use the required holding entity, and, frankly, were sketchy as hell. I'm sure we would not have seen that money again. The woman who showed us one of the flats was obnoxious and semi-hostile - we had made an appointment in advance to look at a mews cottage and arrived on time, and waited an hour before phoning their office only to find she'd never calendared it. Her colleague drove over a few minutes later to show it to us. (It was a mess inside, nowhere near worth what they were charging.)  We saw another of their properties later that day that was lovely, but the original woman met us there and she was pretty much openly hostile to the Daughter, talking down to her and making comments about "was she attending one of the  trade colleges in town" etc. For the life of me I can't remember the name of that company, but if you get one that's not using the Safe Deposit Scheme, walk away.

Honestly, your answer was spot on but it doesn't really matter what makes sense and seems clear because you're dealing with a human being that doesn't know how to admit they're wrong and will take that fight to their grave. What you've interpreted is correct (unless Sirius would like to give her interpretation to show us otherwise and would like to reference the court cases where this was proven to be ruled illegal, but I wouldn't hold your breath as you'll likely get "it's all there for you to read and if you don't want to be informed that's up to you " or something along those lines).

You still don't understand. Lets lay this out in steps then...

The description of what a deposit is, is listed in the Housing law I quoted above. What don't you understand about that?

Tenants' have taken landlord to court because 5 months of the 6 months advance rent was not put in a deposit scheme.

Judges ruled that tenant should be paid 3 times 5 months advance rent by landland as a fine, because that was a deposit and should have been held in deposit scheme as required by the Housing Law.

Then...

Tenant Fees act says not more that 5 weeks deposit can be taken or up to 30k fine and can be a criminal conviction too.

...


 I shouldn't have to referece anything as basic as what a deposit is to a landlord; which you said you are. Getting nasty to try to make me reference things for you, will not happen. 

The laws change to financially hit the landlords who haven't bothered to learn the laws. The having to pay the fine to the tenant with the Deposit schemes amendment, was a masterstroke. 

You still don't understand. Lets lay this out in steps then...

The description of what a deposit is, is listed in the Housing law I quoted above. What don't you understand about that?

Tenants' have taken landlord to court because 5 months of the 6 months advance rent was not put in a deposit scheme.

Judges ruled that tenant should be paid 3 times 5 months advance rent by landland as a fine, because that was a deposit and should have been held in deposit scheme as required by the Housing Law.

Please give us the citation to specific cases in which a tenant was asked to pay the full rental term of rent in advance and then successfully challenged the landlord in court because the judge deemed the advance rent payment to be a deposit.

Please give us the citation to specific cases in which a tenant was asked to pay the full rental term of rent in advance and then successfully challenged the landlord in court because the judge deemed the advance rent payment to be a deposit.

JF - as I know you are a fully qualified attorney and former judge, I will leave these two cases in your capable hands.

Johnson v Old - this is the original case that has deemed that rent in advance is not a deposit
Piggot v Slaven - this is the secondary case that has deemed that paying the final two months rent as security for the notice period IS deemed a deposit

Happy reading.  I have never been able to find any of the many cases Sirius mysteriously references in case law.

JF - as I know you are a fully qualified attorney and former judge, I will leave these two cases in your capable hands.

Johnson v Old - this is the original case that has deemed that rent in advance is not a deposit
Piggot v Slaven - this is the secondary case that has deemed that paying the final two months rent as security for the notice period IS deemed a deposit

Happy reading.  I have never been able to find any of the many cases Sirius mysteriously references in case law.

Just as a point of clarification, I am no longer a fully qualified attorney in any jurisdiction.  I was licensed to practice law in the state of Arkansas, US, but allowed my license to lapse years ago.

Just as a point of clarification, I am no longer a fully qualified attorney in any jurisdiction.  I was licensed to practice law in the state of Arkansas, US, but allowed my license to lapse years ago.

Yeah, yeah, retiree.  Blah blah.  You are still more qualified than any of us. 

Getting nasty to try to make me reference things for you, will not happen. 

There is nothing nasty about me calling you out for refusing to answer direct questions. When in threads , including but not limited to this thread, you change subject or avoid a response at all when its shown you've perhaps not been correct with your facts and respond with how you're not obligated to provide details we should already be aware of (not to mention you misquote us or twist what we've said so it takes on s completely different meaning than it initially meant).

If you feel that's me being nasty, I'm sorry you feel that way and I apologise as my intent is not to be nasty. But you should also reconsider how you speak to others yourself...



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

I’ve got no advice here- but what an absolute thread to read!

There is nothing nasty about me calling you out for refusing to answer direct questions. When in threads , including but not limited to this thread, you change subject or avoid a response at all when its shown you've perhaps not been correct with your facts and respond with how you're not obligated to provide details we should already be aware of (not to mention you misquote us or twist what we've said so it takes on s completely different meaning than it initially meant).

If you feel that's me being nasty, I'm sorry you feel that way and I apologise as my intent is not to be nasty. But you should also reconsider how you speak to others yourself...



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

quality clip

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Well, this was an entertaining read.....and I now know not to take any replies on any threads by Sirius......serious....ly

Well, this was an entertaining read.....and I now know not to take any replies on any threads by Sirius......serious....ly

She has her moments. And her sticking points that she harps on and on about but most of her other information (minus these points she is on about here) is reliable.

Kfdancer, ksand24 along with larrabe, Jfkimberly will let her know when she is full of shite.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

She has her moments. And her sticking points that she harps on and on about but most of her other information (minus these points she is on about here) is reliable.

Kfdancer, ksand24 along with larrabe, Jfkimberly will let her know when she is full of shite.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Yup, Sirius has some real strengths and definitely adds value to the forum.  But she has a few areas where it is her way or the highway.  She keeps us entertained and has real compassion for people in tough/unimaginable situations.