Guarantor liability for my daughter

Marktheshark

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Guarantor Agreement
= Only what is written before this sentence is is valid and nothing after .
(has no standing) Withstanding = is included notwithstanding means the next bit is not in place of the first bit and therefore has no (with) standing on the first bit.

Yes gobbledegook, your still Jointly and severely liable for ALL the rent of EACH guest.

jebervic

Marktheshark wrote: »

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Guarantor Agreement
= Only what is written before this sentence is is valid and nothing after .
(has no standing) Withstanding = is included notwithstanding means the next bit is not in place of the first bit and therefore has no (with) standing on the first bit.

Yes gobbledegook, your still Jointly and severely liable for ALL the rent of EACH guest.

ok, so the clause changes nothing then, thanks.

Marktheshark

Yes you are still Liable for what could be the Rent of three layabouts.
I would recommend you pay a solicitor to draw a deed of bond limiting your liability to the share of rent of your daughter only.
They might charge £100 to do so but it will save in the long run looking at the other.

Arkers

Welcome to the world of multi-occupational lets, where the property is let under an AST as a whole. As an experienced student landlord I understand the confusion, and bad drafting of "legal" documents is nothing new. However, be reassured that your daughter is one of five tenants, each of whom I presume will have a guarantor. So unless the proverbial hits the fan, which obviously cannot be ruled out, the landlord will look to each individual guarantor for any redress for breach of tenancy such as non payment of rent.


Should any monies be owed at the end of the tenancy, then I would try and claim from any registered deposit. No one really wants to go to litigation, it can be expensive and time consuming. Again all the tenants are potentially going to lose out should this happen, so where do you draw the line?


The long and the short of it, is either you sign the tenancy and the guarantee, or your daughter will have to look elsewhere, and you will probably discover that this is type of agreement is the norm. Again, just my opinion, but as the property is going to be let jointly as opposed to each individual having a licence for their part of the dwelling then they have joint liability.


To reiterate I do appreciate your concerns, I find the whole situation unsatisfactory, but in the meantime I hope your daughter has chosen her friends (and their guarantors) wisely. If there is a crumb of comfort, I have found the majority of my tenants to be very prompt at paying their rent; occasionally I have to wait for their loans to arrive but otherwise no problems.

jebervic

Arkers- Thanks but much to the annoyance of my daughter, I am not prepared to sign an agreement that makes me liable for over 2k a month.

Arkers

It does highlight an everyday occurrence of which you are one of many parents/guarantors in this situation. It is not satisfactory and is symptomatic of one size fits all. I for one would welcome some clarity in the spirit of the law. Problems always arise with these quasi-legal issues. There are lots of legal and practical reasons (which I won't bore you with) why a landlord would want to maintain that the property is let as a whole and not under individual licences.


I appreciate your concerns, and I would suggest that if you provided a solution of paying for the whole of the rent upfront in lieu of a guarantor, then this would work for me. Think of it a bit like an insurance policy where you pool the risk. Don't forget there are two sides to the contract, and if you were the landlord and you had a loan on the property.....you need to minimise this risk, and money in the bank early would work for me.:D

jebervic

Arkers wrote: »

It does highlight an everyday occurrence of which you are one of many parents/guarantors in this situation. It is not satisfactory and is symptomatic of one size fits all. I for one would welcome some clarity in the spirit of the law. Problems always arise with these quasi-legal issues. There are lots of legal and practical reasons (which I won't bore you with) why a landlord would want to maintain that the property is let as a whole and not under individual licences.


I appreciate your concerns, and I would suggest that if you provided a solution of paying for the whole of the rent upfront in lieu of a guarantor, then this would work for me. Think of it a bit like an insurance policy where you pool the risk. Don't forget there are two sides to the contract, and if you were the landlord and you had a loan on the property.....you need to minimise this risk, and money in the bank early would work for me.:D

They are not prepared to budge on the term joint and several and are also not prepared to return her deposit until a replacement tenant can be found.

As for paying upfront, good idea but I don't have a spare £3950 lying around.

silvercar

jebervic wrote: »

Arkers- Thanks but much to the annoyance of my daughter, I am not prepared to sign an agreement that makes me liable for over 2k a month.

As a parent of a student I sympathise with both sides. I don't want to be liable for other student's debts but I also want to ensure my child loves in a decent property not some grotty house which the landlord is only able to let by forgoing securing guarantors.

mrginge

jebervic wrote: »

Arkers- Thanks but much to the annoyance of my daughter, I am not prepared to sign an agreement that makes me liable for over 2k a month.

Yet you are happy for her to?

ViolaLass

mrginge wrote: »

Yet you are happy for her to?

The daughter is an adult, isn't that decision up to her?