I spoke to a friend of mine in the UK who responded as follows:
I sympathise with the OP. It's an all too familiar experience here in the UK. I'm a landlord based in Birmingham and let houses and flats to working tenants. I've accumulated a fair amount of landlord experience over the last 10 years operating a portfolio of between 15 and 30 properties. It's certainly true to say that if a tenant gets into arrears and is uncooperative, then obtaining possession is going to be an expensive and protracted process. So the best approach is to think along the lines of "prevention is better than cure". As a landlord I have done everything possible to minimise the risk of letting to a tenant who cannot or will not pay the rent. The good news is that I rarely have a tenant in arrears, and my bad debt is well under 3% of rent due. In case this is helpful to anyone currently letting, or thinking of letting, here's a few points to consider.
1) I nearly always let through agents. The reason for this is that the worst type of tenant, who takes on a tenancy with the intention of non-payment, will prefer to rent directly from a private landlord. So by using an agent, you screen out some of the worst serial non-payers who may be very skilled in creating a false impression of their circumstances, and highly persuasive in getting you to grant a tenancy. In addition, the other type of tenant who intends to pay the rent, but gets into financial difficulties, will be easier to manage at arm's length via an agent because there is no personal relationship between landlord and tenant when you use an agent. Letting directly can lead to landlords feeling under pressure from their tenants to enter into payment plans, and before you know it, the arrears get out of hand. Far better to be one step removed from the tenant, and to keep things business-like.
2) Letting unfurnished to families is a good idea. Tenants who bring all their own furnishings are lower risk, and typically stay longer. This is especially so if there are children at local schools. Should arrears arise, the harder it is for the tenant to "up sticks and leave", the less likely they are to exploit the difficulty landlords face in obtaining possession.
3) If a tenant does get evicted leaving substantial rent arrears, then a judgement can be obtained for recovery of arrears via an Attachment To Earnings. These work well, so long as the tenant is paid PAYE, and has stable employment with a recognised employer. So the quality of the employer, and the likelihood of the tenant staying with that employer long term is a key factor in deciding whether to let or not. That's why tenants who are public sector employees are best. At a more subtle level, the tenant who would be embarrassed if their employer was brought into the payment of arrears is going to be less likely to default on rent commitments.
4) If you are going to let directly to a tenant rather than through an agent, then get as much information as possible about the tenant to help with tracing the tenant in the event of non payment and eviction. I would photocopy ID, record NI numbers, note their car registrations, and have a record of next of kin. I would also ask for 6 months bank statements, and would scrutinise these because the information gleaned tells a story that no third party credit file information would reveal.
In all of the above, ask yourself the question: "would I sleep well having lent £5000 to this person who I have only just met?" If you can't answer yes, then best not to let.