We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Being chased for unpaid as a Guarantor.
Options
Comments
-
You agreed to guarantee the tenant's obligations for the entire time they are a tenant.
They are still a tenant, but have been missing payments.
I don't see why you would think this is anything but exactly what you signed up to do...
I get exactly where OP is coming from and why they think they've only "guaranteed" the stated term of the tenancy.
It does look like there might be a gap in the law currently and guarantors arent being specifically told "....by the way....the guarantee continues to apply even after the original officially-agreed term of tenancy".
I would be asking this question if I were in OP's position. I can quite see it could go either way.0 -
Could go either way.
Normal situation is that tenants remain in the property after a fixed term, be it on another AST or a periodic, so a guarantor should expect that the tenant is likely to stay in the property and continue to act as such.
However, the spirit of the contract is arguably not an open-ended guarantee for all future rent payments. The logical end of this guarantee is the end of the AST, not some unknown time at which the periodic tenancy ends. Should the landlord wish to continue with a guaranteed tenant, logic dictates that they should use another AST, not a periodic tenancy.
On balance, I think the latter would hold true but that's just my opinion.
It will also likely depend on the facts of the specific case.0 -
No, the more usual way for the landlord to deal with it would be to use the guarantee as a backstop to recover their losses once the tenant has been evicted for non-payment and/or left damage behind them.However, the spirit of the contract is arguably not an open-ended guarantee for all future rent payments.
But the guarantor has agreed to what the guarantor has agreed to - and that's to cover the tenant's obligations during the tenancy. The tenancy continues.0 -
If you look at the agreement the rental cost is printed there; quite a lot of money, especially if it hasn't been paid for a while!0
-
Update.
The EA/LL's legal team never bothered coming after me. My Google law degree (a few days of constantly searching "guarantor liability") gave me enough material to deter them I think.
They have however started legal proceedings against the tenant for the unpaid rent.
Hope this thread is of benefit to others.0 -
Which is definitely their first port of call. But if the tenant still leaves them out of pocket, they have six years from the debt becoming due to go after you.Update.
The EA/LL's legal team never bothered coming after me. My Google law degree (a few days of constantly searching "guarantor liability") gave me enough material to deter them I think.
They have however started legal proceedings against the tenant for the unpaid rent.0 -
From a practical perspective, do you have an agreement with the tenant so that they will reimburse you for money you pay out as their guarantor? You ought to have had that in place0
-
I don't think you need to - it's implied by law (in the same way that joint and several liability is among joint borrowers/tenants etc - whoever pays more than their fair share is entitled to be reimbursed).SmashedAvacado wrote: »From a practical perspective, do you have an agreement with the tenant so that they will reimburse you for money you pay out as their guarantor? You ought to have had that in place0 -
If you need it, you're guaranteeing the wrong person.SmashedAvacado wrote: »From a practical perspective, do you have an agreement with the tenant so that they will reimburse you for money you pay out as their guarantor? You ought to have had that in place0 -
Which is definitely their first port of call. But if the tenant still leaves them out of pocket, they have six years from the debt becoming due to go after you.
:rotfl: I'll live.
Their first port of call was very much myself, at which point I formally exercised my right to exit the the "alleged" guarantee. A chunk of the unpaid debt up to that point has been settled anyhow by the tennant but either way they have taken the view that there is little benefit in pursuing me (all but admitted to me by the EA).
Anyways, to me :beer:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards