1/5 Rob 2 months ago on Google • 31 reviews New
EDIT:
I
need
to
provide
a
robust
response
to
some
of
the
issues
raised
in
the
reply
to
this
review:
Firstly,
such
UK
property
owner
guarantor-
only
requirements
are
clearly
discriminatory,
and
have
been
condemned
as
such
by
The
Tory
Government
and
Shelter,
the
UK's
leading
housing
charity.
They
are
in
fact
due
to
be
specifically
banned
by
law
in
the
upcoming
Renter's
Reform
Bill
announced
in
the
King's
Speech.
Every
major
authority
agrees
this
practice
is
unacceptable.
The
owner
keeps
talking
about
"evidence",
as
if
only
a
signed
confession
will
show
his
policy
is
discriminatory.
The
fact
is,
if
you
willingly
choose
to
engage
in
a
practice
that
The
Government,
Shelter,
and
academics
all
agree
is
discriminatory,
then
you
have
decided
to
discriminate,
no
matter
what
excuses
you
might
make.
Secondly,
I
notice
that
RNE
have
not
provided
a
nondiscriminatory
reason
for
such
a
policy.
Frankly,
this
is
because
they
can't
provide
such
a
reason.
Thirdly,
Given
that
I
called
and
told
them
we
didn't
meet
their
discriminatory
criteria
before
we
even
submitted
the
credit
check
documents,
and
they
told
us
to
do
the
check
anyway,
any
loss
is
their
fault.
And
since
they
had
us
pull
our
own
credit
file,
the
credit
check
cost
them
nothing,
making
their
claim
untrue.
Lastly,
this
requirement
is
absolutely
makes
RNE
an
outlier.
If
it
was
widely
accepted,
it
wouldn't
be
in
the
process
of
getting
banned,
now
would
it?
If
you
don't
have
connections
to
wealthy
British
land
owners,
look
elsewhere.
You
aren't
welcome.
My
partner
and
I
applied
for
a
property
with
this
company.
Admittedly,
we
read
the
form
somewhat
quickly
and
missed
one
of
the
terms,
which
is
that
they
only
accept
rent
guarantees
from
people
who
own
land
in
the
UK
and
have
double
the
average
annual
income
(£45k).
They
won't
accept
gurantor
companies,
and
you
need
a
gurantor
no
matter
how
much
money
you
earn
or
how
good
your
credit
is.
I've
since
confirmed
with
an
experienced
local
Estate
agent
that
this
requirement
is
unheard
of.
They
wanted
this
even
though
we
earn
£70k
for
a
£675
flat
and
have
never
missed
a
rent
payment
in
four
years
of
UK
renting.
Needless
to
say,
this
is
a
bizarre
clause
and
as
such
we
weren't
looking
for
it.
If
they
are
just
concerned
about
making
sure
they
get
their
rent,
then
an
institution
with
millions
of
pounds
behind
it
that
nearly
every
other
landlord
accepts
would
certainly
be
satisfactory.
Requiring
prospective
tenants
specifically
and
only
to
have
an
third
individual
cosign
who
owns
a
UK
home
and
earns
double
the
average
UK
individual
income
is
unusual,
and
is
narrowly
tailored
to
select
for
a
certain
type
of
person.
It's
a
criterion
that
few
non
British
people
or
kids
of
working
class
parents
would
meet.
Everyone
who
doesn't
have
wealthy
or
middle
class
British
parents
(or
extremely
generous
rich
mates)
to
cosign
for
them
has
to
pay
all
the
rent
upfront.
Obviously
that
discourages
most
non
British
people
from
even
applying.
Even
if
they
do
apply,
requiring
huge
sums
of
money
upfront
when
there
are
widely
accepted
alternatives
available
is
disparate
treatment
with
no
rational
basis.
Having
grown
up
in
the
South
of
the
USA,
where
such
covert
"grandfather
clauses"
and
"redlining"
remain
common,
it
disgusts
me.
Fortunately,
it
doesn't
matter
what
the
owner
thinks,
because
the
Parliament
is
passing
a
bill
that
will
ban
this
discriminatory
practice.
There
is
no
excuse
for
engaging
in
this
widely
condemned
practice.