Guarantor request by LL for student accomodation

Marktheshark

This scam needs urgent legislation to reign in these vampires and crooks.

Nebulous2

This has been a very fractious thread, with an OP who set out to be controversial and dramatic from the start.

There are several issues here for him to reflect on:-

First of all for these naive innocent students, who is advising them? Surely some of the families have a better idea of what it takes to rent a student flat than the OP does? Why weren't they on the phone / online to a parent or family friend who could guide them through the maze?

Secondly, does he realise that his son has already signed up, by the sound of it, for the kind of liability he is anxious to avoid? So the only difference without a guarantor is that the landlord would pursue his son, trash his credit record, seek a CCJ against him and generally make his life unpleasnt if his flat is trashed, under joint and several liability.

Thirdly how well does his son know his flatmates? If he has spent the past year living with them in halls, that gives some idea about who they are, though if he met them on a night out and decided it would be a good idea to share with them, then that is something else entirely.

Andypandyboy

aquitaine wrote: »

I would not be a buy to let landlord as I consider it to be anti social, parasitical and driven by greed.

Yet you support what you despise by allowing your son to live in one!

Annabee

In reality, the OP probably doesn't have much choice about that!

Letting agencies tend to be a law unto themselves, as many of us know, and unfortunately, the Government has seen fit not to regulate them. (Scotland is a different case, they seem to have more sense up there!)

I don't blame the OP for being worried about the 'jointly and severally liable' bit, regarding his guarantorship. It is quite a worrying thing to undertake to guarantee rent etc for a year for 3, 4 or more other students who you don't know at all. I have seen newspaper articles about the problem before. It's unlikely, but always possible, that a guarantor could end up liable for thousands of pounds debt for their son or daughter's housemates.

When my daughter was studying we did get this in her second year. We were not thrilled about it, but signed anyway as we didn't want her to have difficulties getting suitable accommodation with her friends. Everything worked out fine anyway. In her final year, for a different house, we were only asked to guarantee her share of the rent, which seems much more reasonable. Whether that was because it was a larger 'house of multiple occupancy', I am not sure.

I do understand that landlords want to protect themselves, and that there is a risk to them, but making each guarantor 'jointly and severally liable' for everyone's rent, and anything that could possibly happen seems really over the top. And yes, letting agencies do get away with it because 18 and 19 year olds are inexperienced and probably most don't realise the implications for their families. Landlords do receive substantial amounts of rent from student properties, far more than if they had let the same property to a family, and I feel they should be prepared to shoulder a little risk to themselves. Individual contracts seem the way to go.

Most parents, however, end up crossing their fingers and signing, and 95% of the time it will probably be fine.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Annabee wrote: »

In reality, the OP probably doesn't have much choice about that!

Letting agencies tend to be a law unto themselves, as many of us know, and unfortunately, the Government has seen fit not to regulate them. (Scotland is a different case, they seem to have more sense up there!)

I don't blame the OP for being worried about the 'jointly and severally liable' bit, regarding his guarantorship. It is quite a worrying thing to undertake to guarantee rent etc for a year for 3, 4 or more other students who you don't know at all. I have seen newspaper articles about the problem before. It's unlikely, but always possible, that a guarantor could end up liable for thousands of pounds debt for their son or daughter's housemates.

When my daughter was studying we did get this in her second year. We were not thrilled about it, but signed anyway as we didn't want her to have difficulties getting suitable accommodation with her friends. Everything worked out fine anyway. In her final year, for a different house, we were only asked to guarantee her share of the rent, which seems much more reasonable. Whether that was because it was a larger 'house of multiple occupancy', I am not sure.

I do understand that landlords want to protect themselves, and that there is a risk to them, but making each guarantor 'jointly and severally liable' for everyone's rent, and anything that could possibly happen seems really over the top. And yes, letting agencies do get away with it because 18 and 19 year olds are inexperienced and probably most don't realise the implications for their families. Landlords do receive substantial amounts of rent from student properties, far more than if they had let the same property to a family, and I feel they should be prepared to shoulder a little risk to themselves. Individual contracts seem the way to go.

Most parents, however, end up crossing their fingers and signing, and 95% of the time it will probably be fine.

The reason being that most parents expect to support their children anyway. It's important to realise there is no additional legal obligation being taken on by the guarantor in excess of that being taken by the tenant. If my son made himself jointly and severally liable, THAT would worry me and I would ideally want him to find a place where he had an individual contract. Whatever contract he ends up with though, I might as well be a guarantor - after all, I am going to end up footing any bills he incurs whether I am the guarantor or not, and whether I have a legal obligation to or not. Whether the risk is on him or on me is immaterial.

The OP appears happy for his son to take on this legal risk, but not happy to share it with him. That, or he believes that as a guarantor he has an additional obligation over and above that of his son, which he doesn't. I think it may be the latter as he appears to believe he is providing some sort of "insurance" for the landlord.

mchale

aquitaine wrote: »

I would not be a buy to let landlord as I consider it to be anti social, parasitical and driven by greed.

Hey b0ll0cks I object to that, I am very sociable. :rotfl: :rotfl:

Rain_Shadow

mchale wrote: »

Hey b0ll0cks I object to that, I am very sociable. :rotfl: :rotfl:

You greedy parasite.

caprikid1

I think the only real solution is that you buy your son a flat.


You clearly hate landlords and the all the associated legal issues.


How should this work ?? Should the state provide everyone free accommodation to those who choose / cannot buy ??.




All seems very normal to me, as far as the Landlord is concerned he is far too bigger risk and immature to rent. You have already seen that in the fact he failed read a contract he signed.


Not sure why this thread is still going, sign the guarantee or walk away. Remind you're son not to be so Stupid in future.

silvercar

If you don't want to provide a guarantee for your student offspring intent on a shared tenancy, the 2 serious options are to live in private halls or lodge with a live-in landlord.

Guest101

aquitaine wrote: »

I would not be a buy to let landlord as I consider it to be anti social, parasitical and driven by greed.

Providing homes for those who cant afford to buy is all those things? well I never....