Guarantor Liability

KevynF

Hi Everyone, I was wondering if anyone could advise me please. I was the guarantor on a property with a rolling periodic term lease. The tenant had a falling out with the landlord and he left the property three weeks before the rent was due, handing the keys back to the letting agency the next day. As a guarantor, am I liable for the rent owed up until the point that the tenant vacated, or am I also liable for the entire amount due even after the tenant vacated? I understand that I am liable for the first weeks rent, but is it true that as the letting agency/landlord had possession of the property that the tenancy was basically over at that point, and my obligations as guarantor ended?
Kev

Bantex_2

You are probably liable until he end of the term of the tenancy.

ognum

You or the tenant are liable for the rent until the expiration of the tenancy. You don't say if this is a periodic or month by month contract but which ever it is if the tenant doesn't pay then it's down to you.

This should make people think long and hard as to whether they can afford to be a guarantor or if they want to be.

pineapple123

Agree with Bantex you are liable to the end of tenancy however you may be able to come to an arragement with the landlord but he doesnt have to agree to this.

theartfullodger

Were you given a copy of the tenancy to read before signing as guarantor??

Was the guarantee a "deed for guarantee" and witnessed (with independent signed witness signature)??

If no to either you may be lucky and perhaps (perhaps mind.. ) have an un-enforceable guarantee...

That you may be morally liable is another matter...

Cheers!

pmlindyloo

This may be useful:

A couple held a periodic assured shorthold tenancy under the Housing Act 1988. The tenants got behind with their rent, and decided to leave the property. They posted the keys through the landlord's letterbox, and promptly left the property. The landlord brought legal action against the tenants for rent arrears, damage to the property, and rent in lieu of notice.
The tenant argued that the return of keys to the landlord represented a surrender of the tenancy and that no further rent was due in lieu of notice.
The Court held that the return of keys to the landlord did not constitute surrender in this case. The landlord had not indicated that he accepted the keys on this basis, or agreed to the surrender. The court confirmed that the tenant of a periodic tenancy is required to give formal notice to the landlord; the requirements for such notice are that it must be in writing, it must expire on the last day (or the next day) of the tenancy period, and it must be not less than one calendar month for a monthly tenancy (four weeks for a weekly tenancy). Although there was no formal notice, the court held that in this case, where a periodic tenancy existed, the return of the keys acted not as surrender but as an implied notice to quit from the tenant, acting to bring the tenancy to an end at the earliest opportunity available to the tenant had he given the landlord a valid notice to quit.

But please note that the period for giving notice dates (I think ) has changed.

This is then saying (if I have read it correctly) that the giving of the keys implies the notice to quit.

If people agree then perhaps someone will kindly tell the OP what notice now has to be given for a periodic tenancy - is it now one calender month?

Also, does the landlord have a deposit form the tenant? Could this be used for the rent arrears.

Speak to the letting agent/landlord and ask them what your liability is and then repost if you don't agree.

Link for quote: http://www.letlink.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=470:no-surrender&catid=122:surrender&Itemid=100076

KevynF

Thanks everyone. This was originally a 12 month fixed term tenancy, but the letting agency allowed the tenancy to expire, so that it 'naturally' became a periodic contract. The tenant refused to sign the periodic contract and left in a hissy fit a week into it, sending the keys to the letting agency through the post. The letting agency then had re-occupation of the property the next day. I just wondered if the fact that the letting agency had re-occupation meant that this was effectively the expiration of the tenancy.
For what it's worth I do realise how stupid I was to ever sign up to being a guarantor, and I would advise anyone to think long and very hard before ever doing so.
Kev

KevynF

With regard to the tenants deposit, the letting agency said that it is held by the DPS - The Deposit Protection Service. When the letting agency tried to claim it for unpaid rent though the tenant pointed out that he has a Guarantor(me) and that I was their first point of call, not the DPS. I am not sure if this correct procedure though.

Kev

princeofpounds

As the artfullodger states, many guarantor agreements are not executed properly and therefore can't be enforced.

Up to you if you want to probe further into that route of evading your liabilities.

Miss_Marple_2

KevynF wrote: »

With regard to the tenants deposit, the letting agency said that it is held by the DPS - The Deposit Protection Service. When the letting agency tried to claim it for unpaid rent though the tenant pointed out that he has a Guarantor(me) and that I was their first point of call, not the DPS. I am not sure if this correct procedure though.

Kev

I can't advise legally, Kev, but that sounds cheeky to me !


The tenant asking for the deposit to be paid to them and their guarantor to pay all the rent ? My logical brain says deposit should be used first against the rent, then go to the guarantor for the rest.

But logically and legally are often not the same.

(But I'd be very annoyed if someone I had been a guarantor for expected me to fork out for their rent whilst they swanned off with the deposit )

Bantex_2

KevynF wrote: »

With regard to the tenants deposit, the letting agency said that it is held by the DPS - The Deposit Protection Service. When the letting agency tried to claim it for unpaid rent though the tenant pointed out that he has a Guarantor(me) and that I was their first point of call, not the DPS. I am not sure if this correct procedure though.

Kev

I take it the tenant is no longer a friend. Quite unbelievable behaviour.