Letting Agents Vetting Tenants *

PIMS Credit Checks are designed as practical operational vetting tools to help agents identify linked addresses, adverse indicators and inconsistencies before tenancy commencement.

PIMS believes vetting should combine:

• credit checks;
• linked address history;
• affordability review;
• identity verification;
• Right to Rent checks;
• references;
• practical judgement.

Agents can use PIMS Tenant Credit Checks as part of a wider risk-reduction process before making or recommending a tenant-selection decision.

References help reduce risk, but they do not guarantee future conduct. Agents should avoid language that implies certainty or guarantees tenancy performance.

• Employment can change.
• Relationships can break down.
• Financial circumstances can deteriorate.
• Tenant behaviour can change over time.

PIMS recommends using credit checks, references and practical judgement together rather than relying on any single source.

PIMS recognises two broad operational approaches used by agents.

• Some agents provide reference summaries or reports to the landlord so the landlord participates in the final decision.
• Others restrict disclosure for GDPR and data-protection reasons and provide recommendations only.

Either approach can work, but the operational structure should be clear and documented.

Where appropriate, PIMS Credit Checks can help support the agent’s audit trail by showing that financial warning signs and linked address history were considered.

PIMS believes unusual urgency combined with weak evidence or inconsistent information should always cause the agent to pause and investigate further.

• Inconsistent addresses.
• Documents that do not match.
• Pressure to move quickly.
• Reluctance to provide full information.
• Unclear employment or income evidence.
• References that feel overly vague or difficult to verify.

PIMS Credit Checks can assist by identifying linked address history and adverse financial indicators before the tenancy is agreed.

Some landlords focus heavily on short-term void loss and may pressure the agent to accept the first available applicant. That may reduce the void today but create arrears, complaints, property damage, possession costs and operational stress later.

PIMS believes a sensible landlord wants quality tenants. A poor landlord may focus only on immediate rent and place the agent under pressure to “grab anybody”.

Agents can point landlords toward the value of structured vetting and PIMS Credit Checks as part of a measured decision-making process.

A difficult tenancy can create repeated complaints, evidence requests, repair allegations, communication disputes, deposit disputes and escalation into redress procedures.

The issue is not that a tenant complains. The issue is whether the agency can evidence reasonable operational conduct when challenged.

• Was the complaint acknowledged?
• Were repair reports logged?
• Were landlord instructions recorded?
• Was communication calm and professional?
• Were decisions supported by evidence?

A poor tenant fit may increase the likelihood of repair escalation, council complaints, HHSRS allegations, fit-for-habitation complaints and Section 11 repair disputes.

Agents should remember that tenant selection and property condition are connected operationally. Some tenants may be more likely to complain, escalate or use repair disputes tactically when the relationship breaks down.

• Council complaints.
• Disrepair allegations.
• Access refusal.
• Repair escalation.
• Counter-allegations during arrears or possession.

Some landlords and agents maintain high vetting standards and, where commercially viable, visit the applicant in their current home to assess how they treat their existing property.

This may reveal practical issues that paperwork cannot show, such as property care, overcrowding, smoking, pets, cleanliness, hoarding or general lifestyle concerns.

PIMS does not suggest every application can be handled this way, but experienced agents should understand that deeper vetting may reduce future operational burden.

Where risk indicators exist, agents should consider whether a guarantor is appropriate. This is especially relevant where affordability is marginal, income evidence is complex, the applicant has limited history or the landlord wants to proceed despite concerns.

• Check the guarantor’s suitability.
• Ensure the guarantee documentation is properly completed.
• Explain limitations to the landlord.
• Consider whether the guarantor is practical to pursue if needed.

PIMS believes guarantors are useful, but they are not a substitute for sensible tenant selection.

Where a tenancy fails, some landlords may argue that the agent’s vetting caused or contributed to their loss. That may include rent loss, damage, legal costs, possession delay or management stress.

PIMS believes agents should adopt a rear-guard protection mindset from the outset:

• Keep evidence of checks carried out.
• Record concerns raised.
• Confirm landlord approval where required.
• Document why the applicant was recommended or accepted.
• Make clear that referencing reduces risk but does not guarantee performance.

PIMS believes experienced agents understand that not every applicant, landlord or instruction represents acceptable operational risk.

The agency should consider walking away where:

• information is inconsistent;
• documents appear unreliable;
• the landlord is pressuring the agent to ignore concerns;
• affordability is weak;
• the applicant is unusually urgent without good explanation;
• the likely operational burden exceeds the commercial return.