I need to get out of my guarantor contract.

lazer

silkyuk9 wrote: »

I do not have the original email no this was back in August 2012. But you are correct, I had to print out the contract and sign it then scan it and send it to letting agent again via email.

The contract I have has my signiture on it but this is a scanned copy. The only other signiture is the witness which could be a genuine sign or photocopy to, its hard to tell to be honest as there does not seem to be a 'pressing' imprint on the reverse side, so im guessing they have the original copy which again will be my signiture but a scanned one, and their real signiture.

There is therefore no contract that is valid IMO as there is no contract which has the 2 real signatures.
But I'm not a Solicitor - and I don't know if the contract can be valid without a witnessed signature.

RAS

To be witnessed as a deed the witnesses have to be in the same room and see the signatory actually sign the document and then they witness this fact.

Otherwise the document is invalid.

One reason the OP needs to see a lawyer and understand whether what he has on paper would pass muster in court or whether he can tell the EA to go hang. In which case the issue with the ex is irrelevant.

silkyuk9

RAS wrote: »

To be witnessed as a deed the witnesses have to be in the same room and see the signatory actually sign the document and then they witness this fact.

Otherwise the document is invalid.

One reason the OP needs to see a lawyer and understand whether what he has on paper would pass muster in court or whether he can tell the EA to go hang. In which case the issue with the ex is irrelevant.

I understand this, what im doing is emailing the letting agent with bits on info from whats been said on here. Today ive had no replies from them so im guessing they are consulting their legal advisor (maybe wrong) What i want is out of the agreement obviously without paying legal costs myself if that can be done by telling them what the law says (well sort of). At the end of the day im sure the letting agent does not want bad publicity and lose a landlord that could well have 4 homes on their books, (the house in question is a block of 4 terraced new homes all the same, windows and doors etc) so they may well give me a break. I cannot see it without me going to a solicitor however as they may call my bluff.

G_M

lazer wrote: »

There is therefore no contract that is valid IMO as there is no contract which has the 2 real signatures.
But I'm not a Solicitor - and I don't know if the contract can be valid without a witnessed signature.

This is not a contract at all - and is not meant to be. There is no 'consideration' therefore it cannot be a contract.

It has to be a Deed.

(RAS)To be witnessed as a deed the witnesses have to be in the same room and see the
signatory actually sign the document and then they witness this fact.


Otherwise the document is invalid.

That is up to a judge to determine. A court could rule that even without a witness, the intention was clear, the guarantor knew what he was doing, and the guarantee within the Deed could therefore be enforced.

On the OP's side is the additional factor that he claims he did not have sight of the tenancy agreement at the time of signature (thus did not fully know what he was guaranteeing).

These two factors taken together would strengthen the OP's position. But it is still in the hands of a judge to decide.

anselld

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

Strange then that both times my Student son has had me be a guarantor, there was no witnessing, of my signing.

Not strange, just incompetent!

silkyuk9

G_M wrote: »

This is not a contract at all - and is not meant to be. There is no 'consideration' therefore it cannot be a contract.

It has to be a Deed.


That is up to a judge to determine. A court could rule that even without a witness, the intention was clear, the guarantor knew what he was doing, and the guarantee within the Deed could therefore be enforced.

On the OP's side is the additional factor that he claims he did not have sight of the tenancy agreement at the time of signature (thus did not fully know what he was guaranteeing).

These two factors taken together would strengthen the OP's position. But it is still in the hands of a judge to decide.

Guaranteeing as ive done actually gives me no consideration in my protection too, its ok for me as guarantor to to protect the landlord money but who is protecting me if the tenant decides to play silly !!!!!!s? Its all on the side of the landlord and nothing on my side. Surely there has to be rules somewhere to protect if if things go wrong longterm. I can understand a tenant missing one month and the letting agent contacting me for money and having to pay up 1 months rent. Then next month it happening again, and again and the letting agent or landlord saying its ok as the rents been paid! where or when does my protection come into play to protect me?

Annisele

I wonder if it's worth the OP getting in touch directly with the landlord (rather than the letting agent).

I'm not really surprised the LA doesn't care. Rent is being paid, commission is being collected, and everything is happy - no need at all to rock the boat. Even if T does stop paying the rent, that hurts LL far more than it hurts LA.

On the other hand the LL might be concerned that his T and the OP don't get on so well - and very concerned about the apparent deficiencies in the deed. All in all, he might be rather annoyed with the LA, and keen to get a new guarantor.

DaftyDuck

Following on from the above, the LL may simply accept that it's an unnecessary worry and cost to possibly have to chase an unwilling guarantor through the courts, and so serve notice on his tenant sooner rather than later.

Most LL's prefer a quiet life if they can get it.

ruggedtoast

silkyuk9 wrote: »

Guaranteeing as ive done actually gives me no consideration in my protection too, its ok for me as guarantor to to themprotect the landlord money but who is protecting me if the tenant decides to play silly !!!!!!s? Its all on the side of the landlord and nothing on my side. Surely there has to be rules somewhere to protect if if things go wrong longterm. I can understand a tenant missing one month and the letting agent contacting me for money and having to pay up 1 months rent. Then next month it happening again, and again and the letting agent or landlord saying its ok as the rents been paid! where or when does my protection come into play to protect me?

They aren't going to sue you every month, be realistic. While neither you nor the tenant is paying they will start eviction proceedings then chase you for the balance. Nor is there anything you can do to make them release you from the deed. Why would they do that? Thanks to you they have a nightmare tenant who apparently has every intention of stopping paying rent and a guarantor who is trying every trick in the book to wheedle out of their guarantee.

There is probably an S21 on the way to her right now. IfI were the landlord I couldn't get rid of the lot of you fast enough.

silkyuk9

ruggedtoast wrote: »

They aren't going to sue you every month, be realistic. While neither you nor the tenant is paying they will start eviction proceedings then chase you for the balance. Nor is there anything you can do to make them release you from the deed. Why would they do that? Thanks to you they have a nightmare tenant who apparently has every intention of stopping paying rent and a guarantor who is trying every trick in the book to wheedle out of their guarantee.

There is probably an S21 on the way to her right now. IfI were the landlord I couldn't get rid of the lot of you fast enough.

There is no evidence at present the tenant will not pay rent. Now the relationship has broke down I do not want to be a tool in the arguments, its as simple as that.