Guarantor request by LL for student accomodation

aquitaine

cjdavies wrote: »

If they couldn't be bothered to even view the house, then I highly suspect the agency did in fact tell your Son and your Son either did not listen or as above not care.

No, the agency admitted to me that they had not made any "your house is at risk" type statements to them. They were expected to translate the legalese and corporate doublespeak themselves which seems wrong. If you borrow a fiver from a payday loan company the adverts are plastered with risk warnings, why infinitely more risk is not disclosed in this case is something which needs looking into.

aquitaine

BobQ wrote: »

Are they interested in buying my car? It looks really great in the picture.

There you have it. You would clearly have no qualms about tricking them. Are you a landlord?

aquitaine

BobQ wrote: »

Surely that is the point. It you are letting a house to anyone you want someone to chase. Having a 19yo with no assets is difficult to chase. Having a home owner with a reasonable job is easier because they cannot disappear without planning.

If you let a house to a group of people you need some guarantee that they will "collectively" take responsibility for their actions.I appreciate your concerns about unlimited guarantees but you do need to consider what the impact would be if the worst happened. Not just a total loss of the house but the loss of rent. A landlord can be expected to insure against damage by persons who have a proven track record of responsible renting. But if you have a group of 19 year olds why should you take the risk if their parents are not prepared to do so?

Customers cannot be expected to undertake unlimited liability for the assets of a business whose services they are using. If you are in the letting business then it is up to you to insure yourself. Imagine if buying a plane ticket involved taking unlimited liability for the airline's risk. Plainly ridiculous, why do landlords think they are a special case?

Guest101

aquitaine wrote: »

Customers cannot be expected to undertake unlimited liability for the assets of a business whose services they are using. If you are in the letting business then it is up to you to insure yourself. Imagine if buying a plane ticket involved taking unlimited liability for the airline's risk. Plainly ridiculous, why do landlords think they are a special case?

As I said let's hope they come to their senses and ban you and your son formal plying, problem solved

Pixie5740

aquitaine wrote: »

There you have it. You would clearly have no qualms about tricking them. Are you a landlord?

Your son and his friends haven't been tricked they've just been lazy. Haven't bothered viewing the property. Didn't bother reading the contract. Didn't listen property to what they've been told. No trickery on the landlord's part just a failure on your son's part to do any kind of due dilligence.

Nobody is being asked to provide unlimited insurance of the business's assets. Neither the tenants nor their guarantors are being asked to insure anything. The landlord is just seeking assurance that the rent will be paid. The tenants will pay a deposit to cover things like damage over and above fair wear & tear and cleaning. If your son and his friends keep the place in good order they'll get their deposit back if not deductions will be made. For it to get to the stage where the guarantors need to be called upon to pay for repairs and cleaning because the costs exceed the value of the deposit the tenants would really have to go to town on the property like in Daffy's post. Is that how you've raised your son?

You've used a lot of inflammatory language talking about "demands" and "threats" but the more you divulge the more it becomes clear that your son's account of what happened cannot be trusted. He's probably just being a drama queen, a bit like yourself really.

This particular landlord won't let to your son without a guarantor. Either act as guarantor or get your son to start looking for somewhere else to live where he won't require a guarantor. Arguing the toss with letting agent and using poor analogies on here to state your case isn't going to put a roof over your son's head.

Miss_Samantha

aquitaine wrote: »

If you are in the letting business then it is up to you to insure yourself. Imagine if buying a plane ticket involved taking unlimited liability for the airline's risk.

Under English law, if you are responsible for destroying an airliner you are liable for the full cost without limit.

If you are a tenant and set fire to the property then you are liable for the full cost without limit.

Even if the assets are insured, the insurance may be entitled to go after you for the loss you caused.

mchale

aquitaine wrote: »

If you are in the letting business then it is up to you to insure yourself.

Agreed, but insurer's t&c's may dictate that all student lets require a guarantor.

aquitaine

Guest101 wrote: »

As I said let's hope they come to their senses and ban you and your son formal plying, problem solved

What's formal plying. How can you be banned from doing it?

aquitaine

Pixie5740 wrote: »

This particular landlord won't let to your son without a guarantor. Either act as guarantor or get your son to start looking for somewhere else to live where he won't require a guarantor. Arguing the toss with letting agent and using poor analogies on here to state your case isn't going to put a roof over your son's head.

My understanding is that they have already let to him. Or are we expected to pay landlords £1,000 or so for nothing in return?. And they do want unlimited liability (which they aren't going to get). It is them who are being unreasonable.

aquitaine

mchale wrote: »

Agreed, but insurer's t&c's may dictate that all student lets require a guarantor.

Wouldn't you then go to another insurer? It seems pointless to me to pay insurance then for the insurance company to demand that someone else takes on the risk. I know the insurance industry regards us all as stupid marks who are there to be fleeced but that is really going too far.