Being a Guarantor for my Ex!

BeingThere_2

@RAS

It's all based in England.

I have read a little about the contract not necessarily holding up unless it is a deed ... or something. I think I'll raise this one with the solicitor.

Thanks for the response, it sounds extremely scary when worded in that way!

Through ineptitude and in moments of anger she has been known to screw things up quite royally. I need to mitigate this in some way as I can't just trust her to manage her own finances, she's messed it up before in quite a big way.

BUT I have to keep in the front of my mind that all she wants is a warm, safe place for her and the kids. She doesn't want court cases or the threat of homelessness.



I see now that I can't really expect the landlord to share this risk, it's not his/her issue (though I still think it's worth an ask). I think the whole separate account things is a fairly obvious way of reducing the risk.

I'm open to any other suggestions though.

Again many thanks to everyone for taking the time to respond

missile

Guarantors are exposed to an unlimited financial risk. I appreciate you want to do right by your kid, but if she does not pay the rent / utilities you will be liable for evermore, there is no escape.

You might be better looking for a LL who will accept a larger deposit in place of a guarantor. Even if you had to borrow the money it would be a far safer option.

BeingThere_2

@RAS

I don't want to question your response, you're probably much more knowledgeable than I am
...actually I do want to question your response, but in a nice way!

Isn't it the case that the guarantor is only bound to the contract they signed?

If the contract terms are changed (e.g. if the rent goes up or if someone moves in with her) then that's a new contract that needs to signed and the guarantor (new or otherwise) would also need to re-sign?

If that is the case, then if there is no clause in the contract that indicates that it moves to a rolling contract after the contract term, then there must be a new contract agreed at the end of the term, and in that case the guarantor would need to explicitly agree. Obviously the guarantor is still liable for anything within that initial 6 month contract.

Again this clearly isn't an area of my expertise and I'll get legal advice anyway, but it would be good to get some opinion.


Also, I thought it was unlawful for a contract to enforce an open ended liability. I thought 'reasonable time' was the preferred term? I'm not sure how this would work with a rolling contract which is essentially open ended? Another one for the solicitor - I should have been a solicitor.

sharp910sh

BeingThere wrote: »

@RAS

I don't want to question your response, you're probably much more knowledgeable than I am
...actually I do want to question your response, but in a nice way!

Isn't it the case that the guarantor is only bound to the contract they signed?

If the contract terms are changed (e.g. if the rent goes up or if someone moves in with her) then that's a new contract that needs to signed and the guarantor (new or otherwise) would also need to re-sign?

If that is the case, then if there is no clause in the contract that indicates that it moves to a rolling contract after the contract term, then there must be a new contract agreed at the end of the term, and in that case the guarantor would need to explicitly agree. Obviously the guarantor is still liable for anything within that initial 6 month contract.

Again this clearly isn't an area of my expertise and I'll get legal advice anyway, but it would be good to get some opinion.


Also, I thought it was unlawful for a contract to enforce an open ended liability. I thought 'reasonable time' was the preferred term? I'm not sure how this would work with a rolling contract which is essentially open ended? Another one for the solicitor - I should have been a solicitor.

You will be liable until the tenant moves out, not after 6 months. This is standard. Even if the tenant signs another contract for another 6 months, you will be still liable.

Your best bet is to find 6 months rent and pay it upfront.

BeingThere_2

@missile

That's a very good suggestion, that would indeed limit risk to a known quantity and in the end, provided she didn't screw up in a big way, the money would be safe.

I'll give that one some serious consideration.

BeingThere_2

sharp910sh wrote: »

You will be liable until the tenant moves out, not after 6 months. This is standard. Even if the tenant signs another contract for another 6 months, you will be still liable.

Your best bet is to find 6 months rent and pay it upfront.

Thanks sharp910ish,
* 6 months rent up front and/or
* increased deposit and/or
* increased rent

are the main strike points for me now. None of these options are ideal but all are a better option than being a guarantor.

sharp910sh

BeingThere wrote: »

Thanks sharp910ish,
* 6 months rent up front and/or
* increased deposit and/or
* increased rent

are the main strike points for me now. None of these options are ideal but all are a better option than being a guarantor.

I think if you try to artifically increase the rent to cover the loss for the landlord if there is any problems with damage or whatever, housing benefit may become funny. Saying that, the maximum she can get you say is £625 which is an extra £25, which is not much protection.

I think you should start calling the estate agent/landlord and discuss your situation.

pinkshoes

I'm not sure you would qualify for being a guarantor, as they'd want your salary to be sufficient enough to easily cover your rent, her rent, and your cost of living.

Unless you can meet that, or already own a property with lots of equity, then you won't be suitable to be a guarantor. LLs are pretty picky on who they will accept, and normally it's home owners, or you need a HUGE income!

sharp910sh

pinkshoes wrote: »

I'm not sure you would qualify for being a guarantor, as they'd want your salary to be sufficient enough to easily cover your rent, her rent, and your cost of living.

Unless you can meet that, or already own a property with lots of equity, then you won't be suitable to be a guarantor. LLs are pretty picky on who they will accept, and normally it's home owners, or you need a HUGE income!

You usually need an annual salary of 3x the annual rent.

NervousHomeowner

I agree with the others that your terms are a little naive The whole point of a guarantor is that the LL is taking on a risky tenant and the guarantor is a form of protection for the LL if anything goes wrong. What use is a guarantor if they're only liable for late rent and only for the first 6 months? I definitely agree with the others that either offering to pay 6 months rent or a higher deposit is a better way to go.

BeingThere wrote: »

@monty-doggy
The problems of excuses like "the kids needed X" etc are my main concern. This is why I want it in a separate account that she would have to go out of her way to amend things on once set up. It's worth mentioning at this point that other requirements I didn't previously mention are
* The account would have to be 'administerable' only in branch (no internet or telephone administration)
* Not with a bank that has a branch in our local town (HSBC, Santander almost all building societies)
* Doesn't have a cashcard or cheque facility (no ATM access)

This sounds like a good idea in theory but not having a local branch could be a real pain if anything goes wrong with the payments. I know this is the whole point - that she can't get to the money as easily - but not having a local branch of the bank could mean that if, for whatever reason, something changes with the rent (rent goes up, HB doesn't get paid in time or gets withheld, the bank have an issue that means the SO isn't paid, LL requests the rent be paid into a different account) your ex will really struggle to get to the bank and rectify things in time, which could cause more trouble. I understand the theory behind it but I think it could potentially be a bit more trouble than it's worth and is a bit overkill.

Also, why no telephone or internet banking? She can't exactly take cash out with telephone or internet banking and it can be really helpful if, for whatever reason, your ex can't get into the branch during working ours (e.g. she gets a job). I think no ATM access is a good idea, as is the separate account, but I think maybe in trying to make sure the money is protected, you could be making things a little too difficult for your ex