Guarantor agreements

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
    Yes having a random buddy of the landlord as a co-tenant would be.
    The whole point of the suggestion (#25) was to have the 'stooge' give notice to end the tenancy; obviously this only works if they are acting on behalf of the landlord.

    This wasn't a discussion of having a co-tenant instead of a guarantor.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Ted.E.Bear View Post
      The whole point of the suggestion (#25) was to have the 'stooge' give notice to end the tenancy; obviously this only works if they are acting on behalf of the landlord.

      This wasn't a discussion of having a co-tenant instead of a guarantor.
      That's not at all true. Someone who would have been a guarantor but is instead a co-tenant has a massive incentive to "give notice to end the tenancy". The whole thread is about guarantors (read the title)!

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post

        If you make a stooge a co-tenant he is not going to be random.

        You would have to persuade the "true" tenant to accept an unknown person as co-tenant.

        The stooge will want a cast iron guarantee that he incurs no liability.
        Agreed to all of this, the random person would be known to the landlord and the tenant would know they never want to actually live there.

        But then guarantors would also never want to actually live there, and this was the original suggestion.

        If you successfully sue the "true" tenant for non-payment of rent he will be able to claim a contribution from the stooge.
        Also agreed that this has a detrimental impact on recovering debt. The main point why I mentioned this was as an option to end the tenancy through a NtQ.

        It will not be too difficult to show that such an arrangement is a sham.

        Conclusion: A non-starter.
        Maybe. But I guess people will become more creative if things continue as they do.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by ChrisDennison View Post
          But I guess people will become more creative if things continue as they do.
          Best to keep things simple and avoid creativity. If you think you have a cunning plan run it past a Chancery Q.C. and a professor of cunning at Oxford University (as Blackadder would have said).

          Comment


            #35
            A problem would probably arise when the "special tenant" served notice and the actual occupants didn't move out.
            When the landlord goes to court to remove the trespassers, there's a reasonable chance that the court would choose to treat the "special tenant" as the sham it is.
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
              A problem would probably arise when the "special tenant" served notice and the actual occupants didn't move out.
              When the landlord goes to court to remove the trespassers, there's a reasonable chance that the court would choose to treat the "special tenant" as the sham it is.
              Change "there's a reasonable chance that" to "it can be virtually guaranteed that".

              Comment


                #37
                I suppose the real questions is not "what tricks do I need to try to get around these potential massive risks"
                but rather
                a) "how much extra premium should I charge on rents to offset these massive risks" - 10%, 50% ?
                and
                b) What criteria does a potential tenant need to fulfil to have a hope of a tenancy

                Which is the problem tenants face. This is primarily a problem for tenants - not landlords.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Ted.E.Bear View Post
                  The whole point of the suggestion (#25) was to have the 'stooge'
                  I did not mention a stooge in #25.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post

                    A snag with that is that if the occupying tenant loses his job or is on the sick list for a long time he may struggle to get benefit.
                    I was looking for an approach that benefited the LL, not looking at impact on the T.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                      A problem would probably arise when the "special tenant" served notice and the actual occupants didn't move out.
                      When the landlord goes to court to remove the trespassers, there's a reasonable chance that the court would choose to treat the "special tenant" as the sham it is.
                      But I thought the whole point is that you don't need to go to court to remove non-tenants from your flat?

                      Also, back to topic, isn't adding a guarantor who has no interest at all to ever live in the property as joint tenant also creating a sham?

                      PS I thought I asked this before, could it be that some posts here have been deleted?

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by ChrisDennison View Post

                        But I thought the whole point is that you don't need to go to court to remove non-tenants from your flat?

                        .......
                        Depends. A trespasser perhaps but someone with permission to be there (eg the real tenant's lodgers or sub-tenants...) need court action to be evicted if they don't go when asked calmly and nicely. None would be owner's tenants.

                        Think someone (not sure whom) was suggesting recently on this forum that large persons should "persuade" them out. That would be harassment and/or illegal eviction for which those large persons and/or landlords can and have gone to jail. Quite right too! Plus fines, can be £10k +

                        I had a situation years ago when tenant departed telling a young couple plus small baby they could stay. I planned to ask them to go. I spoke to both police and local council 1st to explain plan. Local council said well since they've ignored normal process to be rehoused they won't get much help. I went round nervous, polite. Said they must leave: tears and shouting from all 3. Said I'd give them an hour to pack. (Genuinely nothing unpleasant). I then Departed. Went back 2 hours later, they were gone, quite tidy, very relieved.

                        Not recommended, most upsetting for all.
                        I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by MdeB View Post
                          I did not mention a stooge in #25.
                          No, it was post #26 https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/fo...43#post1124043 - either I got the wrong number, or there was a post stuck in the moderation queue.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by ChrisDennison View Post
                            Also, back to topic, isn't adding a guarantor who has no interest at all to ever live in the property as joint tenant also creating a sham?
                            Possibly. It may depend on who suggests it.

                            Whatever the position, it is going to be a sham if the non-residing tenant is a person unknown to the tenant and nominated by the landlord.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by ChrisDennison View Post
                              But I thought the whole point is that you don't need to go to court to remove non-tenants from your flat?
                              Why would the occupants leave just because the landlord's stooge has server notice?
                              That might be a valid legal event, but there's no reason to think it would have a real world effect without a court's intervention.

                              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by ChrisDennison View Post

                                But I thought the whole point is that you don't need to go to court to remove non-tenants from your flat?
                                How do you think it works?

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X