Guarantor request by LL for student accomodation

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

silvercar wrote: »

I suspect son's contract is subject to guarantor, otherwise OP would just be walking away from it. With OP refusing to guarantee the joint tenancy, the letting agent will not agree to son taking the property. Leaving son's future housemates to find a replacement for son and son to find another property with other friends.

Yes I understand that. His preferred outcome however appears to be for the contract to continue but without him as guarantor. He doesn't seem to get that he is not taking on any legal obligations over and above those that would be on his son if no guarantor was necessary, as he is conflating the request for a guarantor with the joint and several liability.

I have asked if what he wants is just the cancellation of the contract and return of monies already paid, but he hasn't really answered.

Guest101

aquitaine wrote: »

That is what I have been told today. They are threatening to get someone else to replace my son. Despite offering them these third party guarantors, £6k guarantees and money up front they are totally intransigent and insist upon unlimited liability for all the students who will live in the house. This is appalling behaviour from an industry with a reputation which could probably not sink lower. Very bad day for me as I do not like being bossed about by a band of corporate bully boys. Time for a bit of creative thinking and another try tomorrow.

You really don't get it do you?


They cant force another person into the house, it's JOINT liability, everyone must agree to any changes.


The point is they can refuse your son (and by proxy the whole group)


The reason for unlimited liability is if they burn the house down. The LL gets your measly £6k, what about the other 194,000+??


You are not being bossed around. You are free to walk away!


Being Joint tenants means each person is responsible for EVERYTHING, that's how it works.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Guest101 wrote: »

They cant force another person into the house, it's JOINT liability, everyone must agree to any changes.


The point is they can refuse your son (and by proxy the whole group)

Depends who "they" are, which he didn't specify. By this stage "they" could very well be the other members of the group, who presumably want this sorted out.

Guest101

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Depends who "they" are, which he didn't specify. By this stage "they" could very well be the other members of the group, who presumably want this sorted out.

True! - I meant the LL(s) and agent(s)

Andypandyboy

If my son was in this house and the OP was acting like this I would tell my son to find another sharer. The OP is putting the whole tenancy at risk here.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Andypandyboy wrote: »

If my son was in this house and the OP was acting like this I would tell my son to find another sharer. The OP is putting the whole tenancy at risk here.

Theoretically: if you were guaranteeing your son, could the mother of your son then stand as guarantor for the OP's son, which wouldn't substantially increase the risk on the two of you as a couple seeing that you were already liable for the OP's son under joint and several liability? I am presuming that each tenant must have a separate guarantor and one person couldn't do it for everyone.

There's obviously no reason that anyone would choose to do this, except possibly as a favour to their own children if they really wanted to share with this guy. There's also of course a slightly increased chance of you having to pay out/pay out more on account of their being one less guarantor in the pool.

Andypandyboy

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Theoretically: if you were guaranteeing your son, could the mother of your son then stand as guarantor for the OP's son, which wouldn't substantially increase the risk on the two of you as a couple seeing that you were already liable for the OP's son under joint and several liability? I am presuming that each tenant must have a separate guarantor and one person couldn't do it for everyone.

There's obviously no reason that anyone would choose to do this, except possibly as a favour to their own children if they really wanted to share with this guy. There's also of course a slightly increased chance of you having to pay out/pay out more on account of their being one less guarantor in the pool.

I suppose that would work, but I wouldn't be that altruistic!

Not knowing those involved I suspect I would tend to think the parent had reason to believe his son wasn't trustworthy enough for him to act as guarantor.

silvercar

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Theoretically: if you were guaranteeing your son, could the mother of your son then stand as guarantor for the OP's son, which wouldn't substantially increase the risk on the two of you as a couple seeing that you were already liable for the OP's son under joint and several liability? I am presuming that each tenant must have a separate guarantor and one person couldn't do it for everyone.

There's obviously no reason that anyone would choose to do this, except possibly as a favour to their own children if they really wanted to share with this guy. There's also of course a slightly increased chance of you having to pay out/pay out more on account of their being one less guarantor in the pool.

There is always the risk with a group of students that one or more may not have a guarantor for a variety of reasons, the usual being low (or no) income parent(s) / retired parents/ overseas parents.

It has always been my concern that all the potential housemates have guarantors. I don't want to be the only parent acting as guarantor for obvious reasons.

I also suspect that a lot of letting agents will be happy to allow a tenancy to proceed with most but not all the parents being guarantors.

aquitaine

Guest101 wrote: »

You really don't get it do you?


They cant force another person into the house, it's JOINT liability, everyone must agree to any changes.


The point is they can refuse your son (and by proxy the whole group)


The reason for unlimited liability is if they burn the house down. The LL gets your measly £6k, what about the other 194,000+??


You are not being bossed around. You are free to walk away!


Being Joint tenants means each person is responsible for EVERYTHING, that's how it works.

Who in their right mind is going to take on £200,000 of risk, never mind unlimited liability just for a student let? Lloyds Names are paid handsomely for taking on those levels of risk but these sleazy landlords and estate agents are demanding that people take on identical risk for free. You would have to be insane to do it. I am still plugging away at getting a decent deal on this without accepting crackpot levels of risk.

aquitaine

silvercar wrote: »

There is always the risk with a group of students that one or more may not have a guarantor for a variety of reasons, the usual being low (or no) income parent(s) / retired parents/ overseas parents.

It has always been my concern that all the potential housemates have guarantors. I don't want to be the only parent acting as guarantor for obvious reasons.

I also suspect that a lot of letting agents will be happy to allow a tenancy to proceed with most but not all the parents being guarantors.

You are probably right. These conscience and scruple free bandits will let one or two people bear the risk. They want to do zero work for loads of money.