Guarantor sued by landlord - will he win?

dankes

Hi

I was guarantor for my brother's girlfriend for six months and to cut a very long story short she didn't pay her rent on time because of late payment of her housing benefit and cos she's a skanky little so and so (:mad:). Anyways, the LL rather than chase her for the fifth month's rent shortfall of £95 decided to take me (the guarantor) to court, claiming default on the rent and asking for the final month's rent to be paid. PLUS £550 odd quid in late payment fees (apparently £150 per month rent was late).

I defended the claim - mainly because the court claim was the first I'd heard of the problem. Then the LL rang me harassing me for rent due a month after I stopped being guarantor. When I wouldn't back down, he issued another claim against me. Being pregnant, I couldn't handle the stress and got a solicitor, which has cost me thousands. But I knew if I paid him he would keep coming to me for cash. When he spoke to my solicitor he told him he takes people to court all the time.

After a lot of toing and froing, we ended up going to court for the first claim in August but the LL was away (he tried to get the court to adjourn by telling a pack of lies instead of saying he was away on holiday) so they pulled out at the last minute. Because of that and the fact they hadn't followed correct procedure I was awarded some of my costs.

The LL got an eviction notice to get the tenant out and she left just before the bailiffs went in. Now the EA/LL are saying that there is damage to the property and want the money from me and will be sending me the bill once the work has been done.

Originally they sent me the inventory but I told them I wouldn't sign it cos I hadn't seen the property and I wouldn't ever go there so the tenant had to sign it. But, since she's gone God knows where now, and cos I've got a job it's likely they'll come after me for the money.

Does he have a leg to stand on? I'll defend any claim against me, but does anyone think he might win?

Thanks for any advice and for reading.
D x

going2die_rich

Suggest you think twice before being the guarantor again. What did you think a guarantor does?

If the person doesn't pay, you basically are saying you will.

silvercar

As guarantor you are liable for any rent the tenant doesn't pay. Check your agreement, but generally you will be liable for as long as the tenant remains a tenant, not just the initial fixed term.

As to what you are liable for, again check the tenancy agreement and your guarantor agreement, but you would normally be liable for any rent not paid and any damage in the same way that the tenant is liable.

Late payment fees are often classed as "an unfair term" and a court can and may through them out; certainly £150 per month sounds over the top. The reasonable costs with sending reminder letters may be allowed and interest on the owed money, but £150 is out of order.

If the tenant signed the inventory, then you would be liable for any costs the tenant doesn't pay. Without an inventory the landlord would have a difficult job proving damages, but a court could decide on the damages either way.

This story tale can reach an end now the tenant has moved on. Rather than waste more time on solicitors and court costs, I would offer a payment in full and final settlement. If you don't you risk being taken to court again and being stung for the landlord's costs.

Nothing to stop you taking the tenant to court and claiming back any money you have had to pay due to the tenants action.

PasturesNew

If you are a guarantor you are saying you'll pay any rent/other costs that the person you are guaranteeing doesn't pay.

This doesn't have an end date on it usually either. So if they originally sign a 6-month agreement, then they sign another after that, your commitment doesn't die with the first one.

The whole point of having a guarantor is that the landlord knows they have somebody who will be paying. And that is you.

dankes

Yes, I was aware of what being guarantor meant. I didn't want to do it but didn't want to see her and her two kids (one of which is my nephew) on the streets. Don't worry, won't be making that mistake again.

And, it's a very long story - like I said. In the to-ing and fro-ing I mentioned I did offer to pay all the outstanding rent on the property for the term I said I'd be guarantor because that was what I'd signed for. But the LL wanted the £150 per month, plus interest. He also wanted me to keep paying out the rent that was late AFTER I stopped being guarantor because she hadn't moved out.

The tenant - the one time I could get her on the phone - said she'd paid the outstanding rent shortfall for April and the May rent that was allegedly in default but the landlord refused to drop his claim for the 'late payment fees'. And he wanted me to pay the June rent, those late payment fees plus the costs of evicting her.

But, like I said, we've been to court about the original claim and the judge basically said that had the LL turned up he'd have had lots of questions for the LL because the £150 was out of order and the fact he hadn't sent me ANY notification before issuing the court claim. That's why the judge found in my favour and awarded me some costs.

With the second claim (June), the LL didn't submit his allocation questionnaire despite being ordered to do so twice by the court so it will be struck out.

My query was about the 'alleged' damage to the property. I haven't been there and I didn't sign the inventory so does he have an come back?

Like I said, I didn't want to be the guarantor and I was willing to pay the man the money for the rent for the time period that I said I'd cover, but not for random stuff he has pulled out of thin air. My solicitor, who was reluctant to take on the case at first, was astounded by the LL's unwillingness to settle and said that the LL had basically implied that he was indeed going to keep coming after me for money as long as he could.

dankes

PasturesNew wrote: »

If you are a guarantor you are saying you'll pay any rent/other costs that the person you are guaranteeing doesn't pay.

This doesn't have an end date on it usually either. So if they originally sign a 6-month agreement, then they sign another after that, your commitment doesn't die with the first one.

She didn't renew the tenancy as far as I know, she was meant to move out but didn't, which is why the landlord rang me.

PasturesNew wrote: »

The whole point of having a guarantor is that the landlord knows they have somebody who will be paying. And that is you.

Like I said, I offered to pay the rent for the time that was outstanding, but he wouldn't deal. Plus, he just issued the court claim - didn't bother to contact me at all.

barnaby-bear

dankes wrote: »

She didn't renew the tenancy as far as I know, she was meant to move out but didn't, which is why the landlord rang me.



Like I said, I offered to pay the rent for the time that was outstanding, but he wouldn't deal. Plus, he just issued the court claim - didn't bother to contact me at all.

she had the right to stay until formally evicted and as such chose to extend the tenancy - as guarantor you still carried the liability.

tbs624

dankes wrote: »

......Now the EA/LL are saying that there is damage to the property and want the money from me and will be sending me the bill once the work has been done.

Originally they sent me the inventory but I told them I wouldn't sign it cos I hadn't seen the property and I wouldn't ever go there so the tenant had to sign it. But, since she's gone God knows where now, and cos I've got a job it's likely they'll come after me for the money.

Unfortunately, as the others have said, you will be obliged to guarantee all payments under the tenant's contract until such time as she leaves the property unless the wording of the guarantee was exceptionally poor. However, the LL/LA should supply you with full written details of damage plus they have to get quotes for the work, not just get it done and bill you.

I am not sure from your original post, but were you acting as guarantor because this girl's HB was lower than the full rent payments , or just because she was an HB claimant? (I know you mentioned a £95 shortfall but it wasn't clear to me whether this was simply an amount she chose not to pay to the LL, despite having received the full rent costs via HB, or whether her HB was £95 less than the rent and she needed to pay the difference ) If the HB payments were made direct to her and she hasn't used them for the rent then you may want to consider letting the HB offices know.

Someone else has mentioned that you could pursue her through the courts - obviously you would need her current address to do this and if she has no money the most you will achieve is probably a CCJ against her name and payment at a quid a week or not at all.

poppysarah

You could argue (not sure how successfully) that the minute they realised they would need to claim off you then should have informed you of the problem.

Not letting you know means you had no chance to resolve the problem to prevent further infringements.

Their failiure to let you know means they've deliberately done so as they intended to play the court card all the time.

It's pretty thin but worth telling the judge your side - that there's been no communication.

Also never ever ever ever be guarantor again. I think the process is a disgusting attempt to deflect personal responsibility from people.

tbs624

poppysarah wrote: »

.....Also never ever ever ever be guarantor again. I think the process is a disgusting attempt to deflect personal responsibility from people.

:rolleyes: The problem lies not with the process of using a guarantor, but with people signing up to act as guarantor without fully understanding what it is that they are agreeing to. In the grown-up world all financial transactions that incur a higher than usual risk have to be underwritten by someone.

The tenant still has a personal responsibility to settle their debt, by repaying their guarantor.

Without the use of guarantors many people would not be able to rent a home, get a mortgage (whether commercial or residential), or take out many other forms of loan.

Anyone who is asked to act as a guarantor should always go through the agreement and get proper independent legal advice before they sign up. That bit also comes under the heading of personal responsibility.

If you were letting property or loaning money to someone who didn't meet the necessary criteria Poppysarah, would you run the risks without a guarantee in place?

poppysarah

tbs624 wrote: »

If you were letting property or loaning money Poppysarah to someone who didn't meet the necessary criteria would you run the risks without a guarantee in place?

I think there is so much with the UK rental market that guarantors are only one part of the issues.

The tenant in this case had no one closer than her boyfriend's sibling. That to me indicates she is a very poor risk - which she apparently was.

I wouldn't be guarantor for someone that far removed from me.

A larger than normal deposit is also an alternative to guarantors but landlords know that the ones who will abuse a property will do it to extreme.

There should be proper low cost social housing and corrective measures for people unable to act in a proper way in society.

Guarantors are an amazing idea for landlords - but I think it's wrong. I know of one person who was asked to take their own property deeds in order to be guarantor. They refused - but in theory there's nothing to stop the landlord putting a charge on the guarantors own property anyway.

There are some people who will struggle to find accomodation and it is an appalling shame that councils don't have more property available to them.

I also agree with you that full information isn't given and that the full financial implications should be explained in writing so that the person can take proper time and advice.