Student let

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

    #16
    It'd be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
    I don't see a landlord agreeing to reduce so much his ability to recover outstanding debts, though.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
      It'd be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
      I don't see a landlord agreeing to reduce so much his ability to recover outstanding debts, though.
      It boils down to market forces and the entropic tendencies of letting agents, in practice.

      If the LL has a queue of prospective Ts beating a path to his door, he can make whatever ridiculous demands he wants and someone (and their Mum) will agree to them.

      If Ts are thin on the ground, and the Bank of Mum and Dad says' No way' when faced with the prospect of guaranteeing the debts of Offspring's housemates as well as Offspring's, then LL may have to accept their conditions, or lose the Ts.

      Sometimes the LL would be perfectly amenable to this more reasonable kind of Guarantorship but because the agent they use 'have always done it the other way', history tends to repeat itslef. If I am every unfortunate enough to have to use a letting agent to source student Ts, I shall instruct them to us my tenancy agreement and my Guarantor Deed, whether they like it or not.

      But it takes some nerve on the parents' part as nobody wants their child to end up on a park bench, or to be the one to lose a house their son/daughter and friends have found and want to live in.
      'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
        If Ts are thin on the ground, and the Bank of Mum and Dad says' No way' when faced with the prospect of guaranteeing the debts of Offspring's housemates as well as Offspring's, then LL may have to accept their conditions, or lose the Ts.
        The key is that the wording of the guarantee can only protect the guarantor, not the tenant.
        In the end, whatever the deed of guarantee says, it the landlord decides to sue the son or daughter all the way to bankruptcy, I would think that mum and dad would pay up as much as they can in most cases...

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
          The key is that the wording of the guarantee can only protect the guarantor, not the tenant.
          In the end, whatever the deed of guarantee says, it the landlord decides to sue the son or daughter all the way to bankruptcy, I would think that mum and dad would pay up as much as they can in most cases...
          Yes, I'm sure you're right in theory, but no LL in his right mind would waste time doing that when there is a parent Guarantor in the wings. Why bother insisting on a G and getting them all signed up via a Deed, if you are not going to use them? It's no-brainer.
          'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

          Comment


            #20
            We seem to have veered into discussing Guarantors' liabilities, when the OP was about the AST recently signed and Ts acceptance of a single rent payment to LA and £25 late payment charge for each T, assuming a joint T.

            Rent is payable by the 'Tenant' on due date and most LLs/LAs require this as a single payment for ease of accounting.
            There is nothing to stop an agreeable tenant setting up a seperate rent account, to receive SO payments from all 4, and a monthly SO out, to pay rent on due date. Thus all would have personal record of payments made and the 'rent' account would show account details for payments received. LA is happy.

            Late rent charge - £100 (£25 ea) is extortionate and would be deemed illegal by OFT IMO. (OFT have deemed late payment charge of £12 is acceptable for the month a payment is received late (credit card etc).

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by mariner View Post
              Late rent charge - £100 (£25 ea) is extortionate and would be deemed illegal by OFT IMO. (OFT have deemed late payment charge of £12 is acceptable for the month a payment is received late (credit card etc).
              Quite. And that would be £12 per late payment of the total rent in a joint tenancy, so for each T, it would be £12 divided by the number of Ts, not £12 each.
              'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by mariner View Post
                Rent is payable by the 'Tenant' on due date and most LLs/LAs require this as a single payment for ease of accounting.
                It's true that their job collecting rent is hard enough as it is

                As already said, if this is not stated in tenancy agreement, T can do as they please.
                Even if stated, in practice I doubt LA can do much. However, I would think enforceable that the tenancy agreement also state that a reasonable admin fee will be charged if rent is not paid in a single payment.

                Originally posted by mariner View Post
                would be deemed illegal by OFT IMO.
                Not really illegal, but unfair and thus void, quite likely.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by mariner View Post
                  would be deemed illegal by OFT IMO.
                  Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
                  Not really illegal, but unfair and thus void, quite likely.
                  OFT may consider it 'Unfair' but that has no legal effect as we all know. Only the courts can declare it unfair/void, presumably if such a fee was defended under UTCCR.

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X