Sister has asked me to be her guarantor

Pollycat

JReacher1 wrote: »

You've answered your own question here....

The reason why I think they have a poor relationship is based not so much on the guarantor thing but more on your 3rd paragraph where you have fed back all the bad things that this sister has done. You say you have a good relationship with your siblings so would you post online to a group of strangers all the bad things they have recently done? I certainly wouldn't!

I've read a lot worse from posters.

Just because you wouldn't post certain details doesn't mean that people who do are wrong.
Or that somehow you are superior to them.

The OP clearly thought those details were relevant to the situation, I happen to agree that they gave context.

I doubt there's someone frantically trying to identify who the OP is.

Hermia

barbiedoll wrote: »

I don't see how you can equate not being a guarantor for a sibling, with having a "poor" relationship with them?

Indeed! I have relatives I am very close to, but would never be a guarantor for them because they are so hopeless with money. It also doesn't matter how close you are you should not be a guarantor unless you can take the financial hit without causing your self or your own family problems (the OP does not seem to have much money spare). I have a friend who was incredibly close to his sister and was happy to be her guarantor. Unfortunately she fell madly in love with a dodgy bloke and became as !!!!less as he was (it really was a total change of character) and my friend got landed with the bill and really struggled to pay it.

Sea_Shell

Also why should it matter if you can 'afford' to lose the money. As if it's just sitting around doing nothing.

Surely if they are in the position they are in through bad life choices, or they are just rubbish with money generally, then why should anyone have to risk their own hard earned to bail them out.

I might not need my money at this precise moment in time....but I will in the years ahead so that I can pay my own way!!!

Pop_Up_Pirate

JReacher1 wrote: »

I'm glad I'm not the only person here who would be a guarantor to a family member!

I've started to feel there was something wrong with me as I am prepared to help my family out and not let them suffer!

If my sister told me her husband had beaten her, the kids too, the house was about to be repossessed because husband hadn't paid the mortgage, she had no job but wanted to leave him because he was so violent, the first thing I'd do is offer to let her stay with me.

No matter that it might be a squash or inconvenient, thats something I would do to help my sister.
I would help her find a place to stay. I would give her the deposit or even a few months rent. I would look after the children so she might go looking at places. I'd help write letters, phone for benefits...whatever.

THAT'S helping out a sister who I love in times of need.

What I wouldn't do is be a guarantor. I cannot predict the future.I don't know if she would get ill, or get involved in another 'bad' man.
It would not be wise to risk my own financial situation (one that supports my own children) it order to help my sister. It's not the right kind of help needed.

JReacher1

Pop_Up_Pirate wrote: »

If my sister told me her husband had beaten her, the kids too, the house was about to be repossessed because husband hadn't paid the mortgage, she had no job but wanted to leave him because he was so violent, the first thing I'd do is offer to let her stay with me.

No matter that it might be a squash or inconvenient, thats something I would do to help my sister.
I would help her find a place to stay. I would give her the deposit or even a few months rent. I would look after the children so she might go looking at places. I'd help write letters, phone for benefits...whatever.

THAT'S helping out a sister who I love in times of need.

What I wouldn't do is be a guarantor. I cannot predict the future.I don't know if she would get ill, or get involved in another 'bad' man.
It would not be wise to risk my own financial situation (one that supports my own children) it order to help my sister. It's not the right kind of help needed.

I like the fact you seem quite proud that if your sister was beaten up by an abusive husband, who was also beating your nephew/nieces and she was about to become homeless, that you still wouldn't offer to be a guarantor to allow her to escape from this abusive relationship! I like the fact you wouldn't regard helping your sister escape an abusive relationship as "the right kind of help needed"

i suspect that even the people on here who wouldn't be a guarantor to their sister in the OP's scenario would probably change their mind in the scenario you've described!

FBaby

It has as much relevance as your relationship with your sister does.

Totally agree. I do have have a very good relationship with my two siblings, no issues at all, but I wouldn't be a guarantor to either of them. Why? Because the first one, although doing ok has a habit of finding yourself in situations she needs to be bailed out of. She has a history of asking for money from her mum (my SM) is a hush hush way, and I understand not repaying, or at least not within the promised timescales. I don't get involved, not my business, but I just don't trust that being a guarantor wouldn't lead to a stressful situation for me. My other sister is more reliable, but is very self-centered. I could imagine her coming up with excuses after excuses as to why her position is so much worse than mine and therefore she is the victim and I would have no right to complain if she found herself in a difficult situation.

I can think of a two or three friends I would agree to be a guarantor. Friends I have known for many years, who make a fuss about paying me back -or paying the next time - for things as small as a coffee, who have always paid me very promptly if I have advance some money without needing any prompting, and who I know have always been financially very reliable.

It's not who that person is, it's how much you trust that they would do everything in their power to ensure that the trouble didn't fall on you if faced with unexpected problems.

Malthusian

Pollycat wrote: »

If you don't have a bad relationship with one or more of your siblings it's impossible for you to empathise with the OP - and therefore give her relevant advice for her specific issue.

Of course it's possible to empathise - and that's what most of us have done. I doubt that the majority of those saying "say no" have profligate siblings. They can just imagine what they'd do if they did. It's not that difficult.

Post #76 shows that JReacher isn't even reading people's posts properly (beyond the minimum necessary to find a hook on which to start moralising) so it's not surprising they aren't good at empathy either.

FWIW, I don't think it's about how close you are. To me, it's how responsible they are, how likely are they to take the easy option and spend their money on whatever and leave you as the guarantor up the creek without the proverbial paddle picking up the debts.

It's all about the money. A person's personality (including financial responsibility or lack of) is a black box, even your sibling's. A dramatic shift in personality can be caused by a traumatic experience, a few months of inhaling herbal residue or the removal of a tiny portion of brain tissue - inexplicably and unpredictably. I say this to illustrate that while you may consider your sibling to be upright and responsible right now, no matter how much you love them you don't know whether they still will be in six months. Nor do you know how they will react to having their sibling agree to pay their rent for free unless they feel like paying it themselves. So you have to start with the worst case scenario. As NeilCr said above, when people don't, they get burned.

FBaby

A person's personality (including financial responsibility or lack of) is a black box, even your sibling's.

As said, it's not so much a matter of whether they would be likely to repay or not, because of being naturally financially responsible or not or because of circumstances beyond their control but how they would likely respond to it.

There's a big difference being a guarantor, then finding yourself having to pay their rent because they don't, say because they have had a massive pay cut, but then being faced with sibling paying for the reminder of a pre-booked holiday because otherwise they would lose their deposit, rather than deciding that losing the deposit is a pity, but would choose to give whatever money they have to me towards the payment of their rent rather than thinking stuff her, I'll go on my holiday, even though it could mean me not being able to pay the reminder of my holiday.

I think this is an example of situation that gets people most angry. Getting the sob stories, the 'I'm sooo sorry', 'I really wish I could give you even £10' etc... and then finding that that person has been spending the little money they have on unecessary things, but clearly from their perspective more necessary than helping the person who is taking over their responsibility.

Pop_Up_Pirate

JReacher1 wrote: »

I like the fact you seem quite proud that if your sister was beaten up by an abusive husband, who was also beating your nephew/nieces and she was about to become homeless, that you still wouldn't offer to be a guarantor to allow her to escape from this abusive relationship! I like the fact you wouldn't regard helping your sister escape an abusive relationship as "the right kind of help needed"

i suspect that even the people on here who wouldn't be a guarantor to their sister in the OP's scenario would probably change their mind in the scenario you've described!

There is a big difference between helping someone physically which will give them confidence that they can deal with issues and leave them knowing I would be there for them 100% and leaving it all up to them but just signing a piece of paper.

Signing a piece of paper to be guarantor on a flat/house would NOT be the right kind of help.
Actual physical help and support is.
Staying with me whilst we work together would allow her to escape from the relationship.

Pride has nothing to do with it.

Pollycat

FBaby wrote: »

As said, it's not so much a matter of whether they would be likely to repay or not, because of being naturally financially responsible or not or because of circumstances beyond their control but how they would likely respond to it.

There's a big difference being a guarantor, then finding yourself having to pay their rent because they don't, say because they have had a massive pay cut, but then being faced with sibling paying for the reminder of a pre-booked holiday because otherwise they would lose their deposit, rather than deciding that losing the deposit is a pity, but would choose to give whatever money they have to me towards the payment of their rent rather than thinking stuff her, I'll go on my holiday, even though it could mean me not being able to pay the reminder of my holiday.

I think this is an example of situation that gets people most angry. Getting the sob stories, the 'I'm sooo sorry', 'I really wish I could give you even £10' etc... and then finding that that person has been spending the little money they have on unecessary things, but clearly from their perspective more necessary than helping the person who is taking over their responsibility.

I have exactly the opposite problem with the money I've loaned a sibling.
I'm worried they will prioritise paying me back over other things that I would deem necessities just so they don't let me down.
I've told them many times to let me know if things are tight in any particular month and we'll delay repayment.

That's trusting your sibling!

And - I'm not a guarantor for them and would have refused if they'd asked me so I find JReacher1's comments about 'being a guarantor is supporting your family' comments odd, to say the least.