Guarantor to provide ID in person?

brush-head©

I'm loath to post this as at the moment I don't have sight of documents and am going by word of mouth.
My son is going to be renting, with friends, an apartment in the Manchester area.
One of the parents (not us) has volunteered to be the guarantor - I presume agreeing to pay the rental if her offspring & his friends do not pay the rent. Forms have been completed & a fee paid.
I'm being told that subsequently a letter has been sent to the guarantor that on the day of key handover the guarantor has to be present with a proof of ID.
The guarantor does not live in the area but not that far away but would still be an issue to get there & probably spend half+ day in Manchester.
Is this normal?
If it's not in the document the guarantor signed originally, then surely it can't be enforced?
Seems pretty unreasonable to me, mind you reading about some of the hoops tenants have to go through these days, and the charges agents make, I'm damn glad I struggled to be a homeowner.

Benji

I would say it depends on the checks that have aleady been carried out on the guarantor by the landlord. They should really have carried out full credit checks and ID checks before even accepting the guarantor.

However, lets assume the landlord was silly and hadn't done that. In which case it would not be unreasonable for the landlord to seek proof that his "guarantee" does acually exist and wasn't some fictional person dreamt up by one of the tenants with a word processor and colour printer!

If Ts are not allowed in the property, it may be breach of contract, but if G doesn't turn up, will kids have anywhere to sleep that night (be it legal or otherwise).

terryw

I have some sympathy with the OP, but the points made by Benji are valid.

Would anyone hand over an asset worth (just for a figure say £150,000) to a person whose guarantor was not prepared to provide evidence of their existence and worth? We are in the realms of Nigerian fraudsters here.

As regards your second point,
"Seems pretty unreasonable to me, mind you reading about some of the hoops tenants have to go through these days, and the charges agents make, I'm damn glad I struggled to be a homeowner."

Why not ask your son's guarantors, by means of a second mortgage on their property, to purchase a suitable property for your son and his pals to rent? They can then live by your views and refuse to meet the guarantors of your son's chums. As you are home-owner you could guarantee any such loan.

JanCee

I can't believe anyone would be foolish enough to stand as a Guarantor for other peoples children.

Lokolo

JanCee wrote: »

I can't believe anyone would be foolish enough to stand as a Guarantor for other peoples children.

I think that entirely depends on the people in question.

System

JanCee wrote: »

I can't believe anyone would be foolish enough to stand as a Guarantor for other peoples children.

It's fairly standard when it comes to Uni students. You may only think that you are guarantor for your own child when they rent a house with a few of their student mates but of course you are jointly and severally liable (and so are the other parents). It gives the LL more people to chase and more success of getting their money.

WhiteHorse

brush-head© wrote: »

One of the parents (not us) has volunteered to be the guarantor - I presume agreeing to pay the rental if her offspring & his friends do not pay the rent. Forms have been completed & a fee paid.

Yes, they are now hostages, not only to their own offspring, but to everyone else as well. They are very, very unwise.

I'm being told that subsequently a letter has been sent to the guarantor that on the day of key handover the guarantor has to be present with a proof of ID.

They obviously have experience of guarantors who don't actually exist.

Is this normal?

It's a little unusual, but hey, their house, their rules.

If it's not in the document the guarantor signed originally, then surely it can't be enforced?

You mean force the guarantor to appear in person? No, they can't. They can however decline to accept an unverified signature, although it would have been more helpful if this had been made clear at the outset.