University student - guarantor being asked to pay other students rent debts

booksurr

Madmel wrote: »

I am in no way an expert on this, but if this is an accurate quotation, there is lots of scope for confusion. "...each individual is liable for all the Tenant's responsibilities" implies to me only one tenant, and as a *naive* parent wanting to do the best for my student kid, that's how I would understand it. This is further evidenced by what you were told by the LA. .

hardly confusing since you omitted the prior phrase clearly stating that if the tenant is more than one person....

it is fairly common in contracts to use a word which would, when in vernacular use, rmean either singular or plural. However, in the context of a contact, a word can have a duality of meaning, provided that somewhere within the contract there is overt reference to that fact that duality exists - the earlier phrase does just that

the OP's contract clearly establishes that is it joint and several

CobaltBlue_2

OP - I would try and contact the other students involved first.

Tell them that you are considering informing the university of their disreputable conduct and that you will request the university take this into account when considering character references for jobs etc...

Now, if I was one of those students I would probably say something along the lines of "this is a civil matter between you and my parents / guarantors. My parents potential debt liability to you is no disrepute on my part"

But maybe these students will be more nervous about it cough up to avoid any potential hassle.....??

martindow

Although the OP is being chased for the total debt it is clearly owed by other tenants who failed to pay their parts of the rent. The OP needs to make it clear that they intend to pursue each of them and if it is not paid they may end up with CCJs. The parents who don't care may change their minds when they realise the repercussions on their offspring and prefer to bail them out.

Marktheshark

I would need to see this deed.
But if it is valid all parties to a deed also have joint recovery rights as the deed is an equal party agreement bond.
Where joint and several liability, refusal of one or more partys to pay does not make the one that will liable, liability is equally divided.
Any CCJ will be as deed and the OP will be liable for the share of liability.

They can have the deed enforced or not, but they can not pick and chose which signatory pays all.
Forcing a CCJ and then paying in 14 days will be cheaper as if the other parties are not listed, the OP can add a "defence of indemnity in part" as per civil procedure rules citing the deed as creating joint liability and reducing the claim.
If they can prove that part of the liability has been paid the judge can adjust the remain against those who have not paid.
Defence of indemnity is a very powerful and well case law back principle.

Marktheshark

PS you say signed a bit of paper ?
A deed is trust law and all parties have to sign together and be witnessed by a third party who is not party to the deed as independent witness.

D_M_E

Rent owed = £1200

Deposit paid = £3000

Surely any rent arears will be covered by the deposit, and would not the OP be able to argue that the arears should be deducted from the deposits of the other 3 students?

theartfullodger

It is entirely up to the landlord who he pursues for any or all of the money owed: That's the law: The law is not always fair or just. He may or may not win.

Landlord can take rent arrears from deposit if
a) Tenancy agreement says he can &
b) The deposit scheme agrees he can have it, unless tenants agree.

Landlord can also chose to sue any tenant and/or any guarantor for any or all of the £££ owed. The wise (wise rather than fair or reasonable) landlord will start a case suing ALL tenants & ALL guarantors in the hope someone coughs up (many will to avoid court): If he gets judgement then the wise (wise rather than fair or reasonable) landlord will pursue whoever is easiest to get money from (usually someone with a well-paid PAYE job or owning a property) - getting court order against wages ("attachment of earning") or the property (a "charge" preventing sale without paying him). And debtors may get CCJs with consequential problems with credit, contracts (eg mobile 'phone).

He may or may not win court case.

Cheers!

chris_m

CobaltBlue wrote: »

Now, if I was one of those students I would probably say something along the lines of "this is a civil matter between you and my parents / guarantors. My parents potential debt liability to you is no disrepute on my part"

In that scenario, what about your actual debt to the letting agent and/or landlord? Surely that is a disrepute on your part?

Guest101

chris_m wrote: »

In that scenario, what about your actual debt to the letting agent and/or landlord? Surely that is a disrepute on your part?

Hmm I suspect any references wouldn't include debt between the student and a 3rd party.

Marktheshark

theartfullodger wrote: »

It is entirely up to the landlord who he pursues for any or all of the money owed: That's the law: The law is not always fair or just. He may or may not win.

Indeed it is, but there is what is known as a defence, in this case it is a two pronged defence.
The deed was not signed in the presence of the other joint signatories and an independent witnesses who signed to say they had witnessed all parties sign and therefore the document is not compliant with the trust law of deed and in fact is not a legal deed (most letting agents get this very wrong)

If the judge rules it is a lawful deed, which I doubt without all present as witnesses to bare testament, including the witness , in that case defence of indemnity as the deed is one of joint liability and all parties to said deed have equal bargain power of claim under that deed for loss, or again, it's unlawful.

There is great mis-information on here regarding Deeds and the common perception a landlord can do as they like, they can not, it has to be a lawful document, drafted correctly and covered by the legal services act as to who can draft such legal document unless they are laymen of equal standing acting as private individuals.
Or its invalid again.