Being chased for unpaid as a Guarantor.

MassUk

saajan_12 wrote: »

Please quote / upload the whole agreement (changing names & addresses). Its possible you were party to the original tenancy agreement and jointly liable for the rent / damages.

The tenancy continues until ended by the tenant or a court, so it makes no difference to your liability as a guarantor whether the missing payments were during the fixed term or while the tenancy is periodc.

Hi, thank you for your detailed response. See attached a link to the AST in its entirety, please remove the spacing between the forward slash and p when copying the link (wouldn't let me put a link as new user).

https:// postimg.cc/gallery/hhkahlpk/

My friend introduced me a lawyer friend of his who reviewed the document also and took the view that a court would not enforce the guarantee beyond the term date as the strength of the guarantee is "almost inexplicably weak". The view on this forum is conflicting. I also spoke to 2 lettings professionals who actually gave conflicting views, the clever one agreed with the lawyer!

Please let me know your thoughts.

MassUk

With respect to all other comments about why I chose to be a guarantor etc, it was a personal choice that seemed appropriate at the time (one that I would make again believe it or not).

I just want some views on the legal position and am hoping the responses will help others in my situation.

MassUk

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I think that if the guarantee is part of the tenancy agreement then it doesn't have to be executed as a deed. Tessa Shepperson seems to think so too.



Tessa also has the view that if there is nothing to the contrary in the contract, then the guarantor's liability ends when the fixed term ends. I'm not so sure about that but then again I'm not a lawyer and Tessa is a solicitor who specialises in housing law.

very helpful, thank you.

Thrugelmir

MassUk wrote: »

I just want some views on the legal position and am hoping the responses will help others in my situation.

Almost certainly. The agreement has been drawn up by some within the legal profession. Your choice is whether to allow the matter to go to court to contest it or pay up. A day in Court with your legal representatives may not come cheap. With a negative outcome very expensive indeed.

seashore22

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

No, he doesn't. Not sure why you are asking me that.

It was a rhetorical question. I'm sure we are in agreement about all this and I'm certainly not trying to have an argument with you.

DCFC79

MassUk wrote: »

Hi, thank you for your detailed response. See attached a link to the AST in its entirety, please remove the spacing between the forward slash and p when copying the link (wouldn't let me put a link as new user).

https:// postimg.cc/gallery/hhkahlpk/

My friend introduced me a lawyer friend of his who reviewed the document also and took the view that a court would not enforce the guarantee beyond the term date as the strength of the guarantee is "almost inexplicably weak". The view on this forum is conflicting. I also spoke to 2 lettings professionals who actually gave conflicting views, the clever one agreed with the lawyer!

Please let me know your thoughts.

A clickable link for the agreement

https://postimg.cc/gallery/hhkahlpk/

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

seashore22 wrote: »

It was a rhetorical question. I'm sure we are in agreement about all this and I'm certainly not trying to have an argument with you.

Not entirely sure why you say that either. I agreed with your post and then answered your question.

steampowered

The guarantee clause states as follows:

He guarantees the Tenants will keep to the Tenants obligations under this agreement. He agrees to pay on demand any money due to the Landlord by the Tenant under this agreement

If this went to court, the question the judge would have to decide is whether the continuing periodic tenancy is a tenancy "under this agreement" or not.

I could see it going both ways. This page on Tessa Shepperson's suggests that the guarantee would not be valid, as it says that people staying on at the end of the fixed term 'are proper tenants with a tenancy agreement'.

But this page on the same blog suggests that guarantees are likely to fall away at the end of the fixed term, unless stated to the contrary.

I think one could legitimately argue this both ways. If you got to court, unless someone could find some case law dealing with the very specific point of what the words 'this agreement' means in the context of a tenancy agreement, I think the outcome would be a coin flip.

steampowered

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Almost certainly. The agreement has been drawn up by some within the legal profession. Your choice is whether to allow the matter to go to court to contest it or pay up. A day in Court with your legal representatives may not come cheap. With a negative outcome very expensive indeed.

This will be a small claim, assuming the amount claimed is less than £10k.

The Op does not need a lawyer for small claims - it is a simple process. Cost exposure in case of a negative outcome is very limited in small claims.

You could wait for court, but if it doesn't go in your favour (and I doubt it will) it would be increased costs for you. You could then pursue the tenant but that won't remove the CCJ.

But if the Op paid the court's judgment within 28 days, that would remove the CCJ.

buggy_boy

Is the first page missing something as I don't see any term length...

I can understand where there might be some threat of ambiguity however there is no ambiguity about an AST turning into a periodic tenancy agreement, if the tenant is still in the property the tenancy agreement is still in place.

It is about the wording guaranteeing the agreement. The agreement is still valid, if you extrapolate out you would not argue that the tenants fixed term has ended so they no longer have to pay rent.... The exact same agreement continues on a month by month basis...

You basically have two choices, pay up as per your responsibilities or argue it and possibly go to court risking higher fees...

How much are we talking about if you don't mind sharing?