Member

While the scope of the prohibition contained in the amendment is broad, I recognise that there is an interest in the House in a more targeted restriction on the use of guarantors. Why should, for example, a tenant who can demonstrate an income of three or four times the annual rent be required to provide a guarantor? In answering this question, I must stress to the House that landlords generally take account of several factors in addition to income when determining whether a potential tenancy is likely to be sustainable. This includes the prospective renters’ form of employment, rental history and broader financial circumstances. If we were to say that renters with a certain level of income can no longer provide a guarantor, we would restrict those whose circumstances may be perceived as risky from putting themselves on an equal footing with other prospective tenants. Without the ability to offer a guarantor, and all else being equal, it is likely that, to give one example, a self-employed renter in a hot rental market would find it challenging to secure a property if facing competition from a renter on a permanent contract with the same income.