Guarantor for daughter's rent

jamesmorgan

jjlandlord wrote: »

This is not a contract, this is a guarantee. Not understanding the consequences is a possible defense.

Moreover, please note that individually negotiated terms are excluded from unfair terms legislation.

As I say this is a complex legal area. There are 2 separate issues

a) Has the guarantor agreement been executed in the right way - in many cases it hasn't and regardless of the terms in the associated tenancy agreement it can be put aside

b) Does the tenancy agreement contain unfair terms that are unenforceable. If this is the case, and the guarantor (or tenant) can demonstrate that negotiation was not balanced, then these terms can be discounted.

The reason that the latter is important is that the biggest risk to a guarantor is not unpaid rent but damage to the property. In the worst case scenario if the building was completely destroyed and the tenancy agreement had the tenants liable for this, then the landlord would chase the guarantors (as it is unlikely that students would have any money to cover this damage).

It is also incorrect that individually negotiated terms are excluded from unfair terms legislation. It only has to be demonstrated that power of negotiation was not equal. If this was not the case then all business to business contracts would be excluded (as all are typically negotiated). This is why many legal teams spend a lot of time documenting negotiations as it may provide legal protection later on.

jjlandlord

jamesmorgan wrote: »

b) Does the tenancy agreement contain unfair terms that are unenforceable. If this is the case, and the guarantor (or tenant) can demonstrate that negotiation was not balanced, then these terms can be discounted.

I agree, but that's not directly the issue here.

jamesmorgan wrote: »

It is also incorrect that individually negotiated terms are excluded from unfair terms legislation.

They are explicitly excluded from the UTCCR 1999.

jamesmorgan wrote: »

If this was not the case then all business to business contracts would be excluded (as all are typically negotiated).

B2B contracts are indeed largely excluded.

spacey2012

It is actually deed law, many rouge landlords are making small fortunes from these joint servility deeds.

To be legal a deed must be formed in the same room with all persons signing at the same time with a witness and legal representative or solicitor .

They rarely are.

fiscalfreckles

JencParker wrote: »

I've been guarantor for both my children while they were at university and never had to supply anything - I simply signed a form saying that I was guarantor. Last time was about 4 years ago so I guess things have changed.

splishsplash wrote: »

Exactly what I've had to do each year for each of my two daughters for the last three and two years respectively. I'm stunned at the level of information sought and even more stunned that some people seem to think it's reasonable :eek:

I have to echo the above, I think the information is excessive.

For my daughter, in a joint tenancy, I had to provide my name, address, signature, details of my salary & a reference (employee or accountant). All four of the tenants were treated individually.

jamesmorgan

jjlandlord wrote: »

I agree, but that's not directly the issue here.

Not sure I would agree with that. When taking on responsibilities of a guarantor, you are effectively taking on all the tenants obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement. For the sake of argument let's say that one of the terms says that the tenant is liable for any damage caused by a 3rd party who is introduced into the house by the tenant. The tenant then invites a friend to stay the night. The friend leaves a cigarette burning which causes a fire and burns down the house. The tenant is strictly liable for the damages to the house. As the tenant cannot pay this, the liability passes onto the guarantor. If, as guarantor, I have an email from the letting agency saying that the tenancy agreement is their standard agreement and they are not prepared to negotiate terms, I am in a reasonably strong position to try to argue that the obligations on a tenant to cover the actions of 3rd parties is an unfair term. If I don't have this I need to somehow counter the argument from the agency that the agreement was non-standard and entered into freely by both parties who could have requested any changes required at the time. It is of course possible to win this argument, but I would rather have some documentary evidence to support my case. Of course, the worst scenario is that the agency do agree to make some change to the contract so that it is no longer a standard contract. If this is the case then you need to ensure that you really are comfortable with all terms.

The UTCCR 1999 is an extension to Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and specifically relates only to consumer contracts (so by definition B2B contract are not covered, however, these are fully covered by the UCTA 1977). Regardless of this, most of the fine details have been derived through common law rather than strictly defined in the Act (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Albans_District_Council_v_International_Computers_Ltd)

AdrianC

spacey2012 wrote: »

It is actually deed law, many rouge landlords are making small fortunes from these joint servility deeds.

Whilst the pinkish ones only make a little bit?

Seriously, are they "making small fortunes"? Or are they merely holding the guarantor to what the tenant is contractually obliged to pay?

If the deposit is being unfairly withheld, for damage that wasn't really caused, then that's a separate issue to whether it's the tenant or guarantor who's paying.

The issue of joint liability is another one where I can see both sides, to be frank. The landlord is letting one property to a group of students. Either he has to do a LOT of work - which could easily be viewed as intrusive - to track what could easily be a very fluid and difficult-to-trace group, or the responsibility for that is passed to the group via joint and several liability. When it comes to the deposit, can you _imagine_ the problems for the landlord in proving which particular one of maybe ten students (plus partners, plus friends...) is actually responsible for breaking the shower rail? Not a hope.

damsonjam

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I don't understand your question. Being a guarantor for a tenant on a joint-and several tenancy agreement couldn't possibly be worse for you. As she's a student with limited resources to cover the other tenants rents, it's unlikely that the LL/agent will allow her a tenancy without a guarantor with or without her rent being being paid by you in advance.

What she really needs to find is a room in an HMO where you will be guaranteeing solely her rent and no-one else's. If she says she can't find one, it's probably bunkum. She likely wants to share with these Uni pals and not anyone else.

yes they are her pals but all the letting agents seem to operate the same way...

damsonjam

Mokka wrote: »

I feel for you. If it's a joint tenancy do other tenants have to provide guarantors, or just your daughter?
You will be legally responsible for everyone's rent if you sign the agreement as it is.
I've seen a post somewhere on this forum about someone inserting clauses into the guarantor agreement limiting their liability- don't remember when- sorry!

All tenants have to provide guarantors but it has been explained to me by the letting agency that I will become liable IF any of the tenants defaults AND another guarantor lets them down AND my daughter doesn't have the funds..
We agreed that it is a 'worst case scenario' but I wasn't happy..nevertheless, they won't vary their terms and several people have pointed out that its 'standard practice' so I'll probably lump it..

Siskin

My daughter is renting in London now since leaving Uni, and has alow paid job so they still want parents to be Guarantors.

It has got more like the spanish inquisition every year of renting.

I thought I was going to have to donate an organ.

Lengths they go to really felt incredibly intrusive but we seemed to have no option.:(