Guarantor for only 1/3 of the rent?

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

  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
    True; and you're a teacher. So?
    So I defer to Lawcruncher's analysis (as expounded previously), as he is legally qualified and I trust him to know what he is talking about.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
    That wasn't the question - and in any case Paul_f is a former letting agent, not a lawyer.
    True; and you're a teacher. So?

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
    Paul_f seems not to be!
    That wasn't the question - and in any case Paul_f is a former letting agent, not a lawyer.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    You mean you are not persuaded by my arguments?
    Paul_f seems not to be!

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
    So some say; but I await news of any High Court case definitively holding that one or other view is the law.
    You mean you are not persuaded by my arguments?

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    So some say; but I await news of any High Court case definitively holding that one or other view is the law.

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
    I do hope your daughter is No 5, 6, 7 or 8th named on the TA as she can walk-away at the end of the tenancy knowing that L cannot touch her legally.
    The discussions which have taken place here on that issue (which is separate from this thread's issue of Guarantors' liablity) seem to have concluded that that is not in fact the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulF
    replied
    Originally posted by Ericthelobster View Post
    It does strike me as odd that somehow this guarantor issue hasn't or can't be satisfactorily resolved... if I were asking a tenant to provide a guarantor I wouldn't expect or want said guarantor to cover all the co-tenants; and as the parent of a university student currently sharing a rented house with 7 others who I don't know from Adam, I would be extremely reluctant to serve as guarantor for her!
    I do hope your daughter is No 5, 6, 7 or 8th named on the TA as she can walk-away at the end of the tenancy knowing that L cannot touch her legally.

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    No, because the relationship between the tenants amongst themselves and with the landlord is governed by the tenancy agreement. You say in the guarantee, to put it beyond doubt, that the arrangement with the guarantor is without prejudice to the right of the landlord to proceed against any tenant on the basis that the tenants are jointly and severally liable.
    Exactly. The best words in the best order!

    That's what I was trying to explain (and failing!)

    Parents (including me) of student tenants are understandably unwilling to guarantee the debts of the 3, 4, 5, 6 or more strangers with whom their offspring propose to live. Market forces and the bone-headedness of some letting agents will determine matters in some cities, but it is a perfectly reasonable objection and I predict that increasingly, LLs will have to accommodate it. LC has explained how it can be done - parent Guarantors, insist on it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by Grrr View Post
    I see what you're saying lawcruncher, but doesn't that then suggest "all tenants are jointly and severally liable, apart from tenant X who only has to pay up to his share and no more" ?

    On the other hand I guess that just releases the Guarantor from any further responsibility, but not tenant x (even though x probably hasn't got any money!) ?
    No, because the relationship between the tenants amongst themselves and with the landlord is governed by the tenancy agreement. You say in the guarantee, to put it beyond doubt, that the arrangement with the guarantor is without prejudice to the right of the landlord to proceed against any tenant on the basis that the tenants are jointly and severally liable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ericthelobster
    replied
    Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
    So when your daughter signed up for her shared student house, you did not have to act as Guarantor?
    Surprisingly enough, no; it was never mentioned although I was fully expecting it to be an issue!

    I do not see why an individual G cannot be liable for a defined amount/proportion of the joint debt even if the T legally is not.
    No, and I'd agree; but isn't the point whether it's 'legally' possible to achieve that aim; which is what I was getting at by my point (b) above?

    Leave a comment:


  • jjlandlord
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
    But OP was trying to see if G could guarantee "G's" tenant's one-third only. I'd say not.
    Agreed. I should have been clearer.

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by Ericthelobster View Post
    'Worked' how though: (a) you've been able to get guarantors to sign up, in the belief/assumption that they are only liable for their own tenant's actions; or (b) you've acted as a guarantor yourself under such an agreement, and have successfully defended yourself in court against a landlord who was attempting to make you pay for the actions of one of your tenant's co-residents?

    I'm guessing (a)... surely unless (b) has been tested, you can't know whether the proposed solution is going to work?

    It does strike me as odd that somehow this guarantor issue hasn't or can't be satisfactorily resolved... if I were asking a tenant to provide a guarantor I wouldn't expect or want said guarantor to cover all the co-tenants; and as the parent of a university student currently sharing a rented house with 7 others who I don't know from Adam, I would be extremely reluctant to serve as guarantor for her!
    So when your daughter signed up for her shared student house, you did not have to act as Guarantor?

    And (as already explained), I do not see why an individual G cannot be liable for a defined amount/proportion of the joint debt even if the T legally is not.

    Leave a comment:


  • mind the gap
    replied
    Originally posted by Grrr View Post
    I see what you're saying lawcruncher, but doesn't that then suggest "all tenants are jointly and severally liable, apart from tenant X who only has to pay up to his share and no more" ?

    On the other hand I guess that just releases the Guarantor from any further responsibility, but not tenant x (even though x probably hasn't got any money!) ?
    It works best when all Gs are bound by the same terms with relation to their own 'protegés' (for want of a better word - usually their son/daughter).

    Leave a comment:


  • Ericthelobster
    replied
    Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
    It has worked for me.
    'Worked' how though: (a) you've been able to get guarantors to sign up, in the belief/assumption that they are only liable for their own tenant's actions; or (b) you've acted as a guarantor yourself under such an agreement, and have successfully defended yourself in court against a landlord who was attempting to make you pay for the actions of one of your tenant's co-residents?

    I'm guessing (a)... surely unless (b) has been tested, you can't know whether the proposed solution is going to work?

    It does strike me as odd that somehow this guarantor issue hasn't or can't be satisfactorily resolved... if I were asking a tenant to provide a guarantor I wouldn't expect or want said guarantor to cover all the co-tenants; and as the parent of a university student currently sharing a rented house with 7 others who I don't know from Adam, I would be extremely reluctant to serve as guarantor for her!

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X