Guarantor - help

Notebook

Have been given an agreement with an additional clause saying:-

The Guarantors are agreeing to guarantee the rent only for the named tenant only on this agreement, despite the tenancy agreement itself being a jointly and severally liable agreement.
With reference to clause 4 of this agreement , the guarantors are not in any way responsible for the bearing of any costs in respect to damage to the property. This will be handled directly between the tenant and the landlord.

My stepson was a student previously and rented a flat with friends and another flat later with his girlfriend. He is now going to share with a mate who's father has signed his half.

My question is this - Is this binding and is it as it says on the tin by me only being liable for his share should anything go wrong.

Thanks

Pixie5740

Hmmm that is rather contradictory. As you've rightly pointed out, your son has joint and several liability for the whole rent and not just part of it. So really you'd be guaranteeing the whole rent because "his share" doesn't exist.

Notebook

If I got "his share" added to the clause - e.g. 350 a month etc and got that signed by the LL would that sow it up?

eddddy

Yes - I would add a handwritten note to clarify (and initial it) saying something like "The named tenant's rent being £x per month, so the guarantor's liability is limited to that amount."

I've done that kind of thing in the past, and it's never been queried. (Although some of the professional LLs that follow this board might have different views.)

Is the form already signed by the LL? If so, the LL will have to re-sign.

But if it's just a form for you to sign (plus a witness), there's no need to ask the LL to sign anything.


Edit to add:

And of course, make sure you keep a copy of the revised signed doc.

Notebook

I just have the paperwork, so could add that before its submission. Its not signed yet.
Thanks

G_M

You have a copyof the tenancy agreement? What exactly does it say?

What exactly does clause 4 say?

What exactly is this document? An 'agreement'? A 'contract'? A 'Deed'? What does it say at the top?

Who else has/will sign?

The wordng is certainly ambiguous/contradictory and in a dispute could lead to legal argument.

Notebook

I have it in pdf - how can I upload it?

Marktheshark

There is no such thing as "additional note" anything not on the sheet signed or below the signatures is void.

Notebook

http://www.docdroid.net/xy3s/alex.pdf.html

Notebook

might have them in the wrong order

G_M

Well to start with it claims the agreement forms a 'contract'. Clearly it doesn't, since there is no 'consideration'.

A contract, to be valid, must provide Consideration to each party. In a tenancy agreement, for example, the consideration on one side is receipt of rent, and on the other side is receipt of accomodation. Each party owes something to the other.

Arguably this 'agreement' provides the landlord with security for the rent, but it provides absolutely no benefit, or 'consideration', for the guarantor. It therefore cannot be a contract, despite claiming to be.

Thus a guarantee agreement should be Executed as a Deed. It should clearly state that it is a Deed. Since it doesn't, it could be argued in court that it has no validity at all, neither as a contract nor a Deed). However, courts are not always logical and a judge might conclude that the intention of the agreement was clear, and so might accept its validity.

As to the clause in question, that too seems highly ambiguous.

* Clause 4 is clear: the guarantor is liable for the full rent owed by the tenant (which is the total rent as the tenancy is, I believe, joint and several. The tenant is also liable for any damage ('reasonable losses and expenses').

* the additional clause claims to limit liabilty to the named tenant's rent only - but since the named tenant's rent is the full rent, not some unspecified share of it, this clause arguable has no effect

* the additional clause also claims to limit liability to rent and exclude damage - this seems less ambiguous and I suspect a court would have little difficulty accepting this.