Student co-renter rips off the house

spadoosh

Comms69 wrote: »

Tenancy contracts, like many others (99.9% of what a consumer will see) do not require training or knowledge of legalese.

The fundamentals of contracts - ie joint and severable in this case - require very basic explanation.

None of this ‘takes advantage’ of students; it’s supply and demand. And whilst yes I may be near the top end; it does not mean that we or the state should play nanny to everyone else. It’s called personal responsibility; something much lacking in young people.

Right, the landlord can easily have a contract that is for each individual that seperates their liability. The landlord require a guarantor for each student. So theyre covering there liability there. Why do they need to further cover that liability by passing on to people who should not be liable.

Expecting anyone to have personal liability for someone else (unrelated and a good chance of a somewhat brief history with them) is crazy.

Lets do it this way, why dont mortgage companies have a joint and severable clause in their contracts for all customers across their mortgages? So someone defaults ontheir mortgge and everyone elses mortgage payments go up?

Well they wouldnt exist for very long (im assuming this is the supply and demand) because others dont. But then if others did, everyone would do it and thus there would be little choice.

Ah but they do almost have this clause in the fact that they charge premium on their products that is used to offset such losses.

So landlords get the protection of a contract from a renter. A contract with a guarantor (who lets be honest in this case seems like the LL has done a shocking job of verifying the validity of said guarantor) a contract that includes 8 others being liable for someone they have no control over as well as their 8 guarantors. as well as what is more that likely the protection of losses in what is a fairly high mark up industry. as well as the usually pretty substantial deposits in case of damages or you know shortfalls.

Youre right, we shouldnt nanny people. Landlords included! These are genric contracts that they simply copy and paste from the internet. You expect students to understand various aspects of contract law but a LL can get away copy and pasting a contract from the internet and being offered all the protection that is possibly available to them short of taking a relative as hostage until the lease is over.

Comms69

spadoosh wrote: »

Right, the landlord can easily have a contract that is for each individual that seperates their liability. The landlord require a guarantor for each student. So theyre covering there liability there. Why do they need to further cover that liability by passing on to people who should not be liable.

Expecting anyone to have personal liability for someone else (unrelated and a good chance of a somewhat brief history with them) is crazy.

Lets do it this way, why dont mortgage companies have a joint and severable clause in their contracts for all customers across their mortgages? So someone defaults ontheir mortgge and everyone elses mortgage payments go up?

Well they wouldnt exist for very long (im assuming this is the supply and demand) because others dont. But then if others did, everyone would do it and thus there would be little choice.

Ah but they do almost have this clause in the fact that they charge premium on their products that is used to offset such losses.

So landlords get the protection of a contract from a renter. A contract with a guarantor (who lets be honest in this case seems like the LL has done a shocking job of verifying the validity of said guarantor) a contract that includes 8 others being liable for someone they have no control over as well as their 8 guarantors. as well as what is more that likely the protection of losses in what is a fairly high mark up industry. as well as the usually pretty substantial deposits in case of damages or you know shortfalls.

Youre right, we shouldnt nanny people. Landlords included! These are genric contracts that they simply copy and paste from the internet. You expect students to understand various aspects of contract law but a LL can get away copy and pasting a contract from the internet and being offered all the protection that is possibly available to them short of taking a relative as hostage until the lease is over.

No one is forcing them to sign up to this. It’s called freedom of choice. Both landlords and tenants can choose to not let/rent on whatever terms they want / don’t want.

Mortgages do have joint and severable agreements - that’s really confusing.

You must remember none of the tenants are renting a room; they are renting the house, as a group.

Why would a landlord want to deal with ten individual tenancies, 10 deposits to protect, ten notices etc.

need_an_answer

In fairness a lot of student letting agencies are coming away from the parent/guarantor being responsible for all the tenants in the property simply because its had a bad press over the years and a lot of parents/guarantors are reading the contract...and indeed questioning it or rejecting it ...as I did.


I've also started to come across the no deposit scenario with the agents/ll's preferring to operate a system of "spreadsheet with suggested costs for damage" passed wholly to the student if in their room and split between the house if in communal areas.

The moral is question everything both in terms of the student when they are looking for something to rent and the parent/guarantor when they too are asked to sign.
There isn't a standard template when it comes to student letting and whilst you think you know what to expect after the first year of uni and a rental it wont follow that years 2 or 3 and beyond will follow the same pattern.

Smodlet

Private LLs have everything their own way. The law is on their side. It is in everyone's interest to read and re-read contracts, asking all the questions they need to and consulting a lawyer if necessary before signing. All that will cost them is time and a little bit of effort.

"Caveat emptor" is as old as the language in which it is rendered. Back in the day, some people were gullible enough to buy "a pig in a poke" (a supposed piglet presented within a sack) without opening it to check what they were actually buying; after all, it might escape. Once they got it home and opened the sack they literally "let the cat out of the bag." Their bad.

I don't know whether parents need financial/contract education or not but surely it must be difficult to live long enough for one's children to reach 18+ without gleaning at least the basics, isnt' it? Then again, I can never understand how entire generations seem devoid of the most basic culinary skills. You don't need to be a chef to be able to cook a balanced meal; neither do you need to be a lawyer to understand a tenancy agreement.

Perhaps Judge Rinder or Angela Rippon or someone should do for students' guarantors what James May has attempted to do for those lacking DIY skills in his Man Lab (sexist, much)

Aside: Does it really take a woman to know putting a wooden door on a pizza oven is not a good idea?

spadoosh

Comms69 wrote: »

No one is forcing them to sign up to this. It’s called freedom of choice. Both landlords and tenants can choose to not let/rent on whatever terms they want / don’t want.

Mortgages do have joint and severable agreements - that’s really confusing.

You must remember none of the tenants are renting a room; they are renting the house, as a group.

Why would a landlord want to deal with ten individual tenancies, 10 deposits to protect, ten notices etc.

So you do agree at least that the contract is in favour of the LL in these instances?

You say theres choice, well that depends entirely on your circumstances. Standard lets tend not to allow for 9 people sharing. Without knowing the area or its costs its usually cheaper to take such an option than it is to rent privately through youre more typical lets (1,2,3 beds) not to mention its rare these types of landlord will let to students. Student houses also tend to be in specific areas geographically close to the university which can restrict choice substantially too.

Its not confusing at all, youve not understood. You are not liable for my mortgage if i default. The mortgage company charge a premium on their products to try and cover some losses should either one of us default but you are in no way liable for my mortgage.

You highlight the whole point of these contracts in that it is to make life easier for the landlord at the expense of the renters.

Yovue probably guessed similar happened to me hence a certain amount of passion towards this. I did understand i was liable for the whole property. I also looked for alternative but short of paying twice as much for university accommodation which had no choice but to be catered.

My saving grace is i did to a certain extent understand the law and contracts. The LL chased us for non payment of a house member. This was at a time before hefty deposits and guarantors. I was well aware of what was in the contract so spent time looking in to contesting it should it ever arise, suspecting there was a chance it could. Fortunately our LL dropped his foot in it with regards to being a HMO. He thought telling us that we shouldnt lock our doors was sufficient. It wasnt. It was simply an unlicensed HMO. When he sent the threatening letters to us all individual asking for the full amount from all of us... tool... i replied suggesting he best sort out his HMO license before taking this further. Believe it or not we didnt get another letter. He did the morally correct thing and chased the runner. Who ultimately ended up paying.


I completely accept what youre saying in relation to what are essentially domestic tenancies. These are not. As said several times its ridiculous to expect not only an 18 year old to be accountable for another 18 years olds actions but a guarantor of student being liable for another students liability.

This student pays £600 per month. Thats £7200 per year, the highest maintenance loan (the aspect for living costs) you can get is a bit over £8000 per year.

Theres clearly a lot more money in student lets than there is domestic. Thats why i would expect a landlord would be willing to to do individual tenancies. If they dont want to do that , they should go with typical domestic lets where one lease is appropriate for the situation.

You can only argue fairness in contractual terms and i do completely accept that the law. Theres no way you can justify this morally though.

The thing is youre calling parents and everyone for not knowing but there is literally thousands of students signing these contracts every year. And every single one of them will require a guarantor who are counter signing these things. Otherwise they wouldnt happen. So there is clearly a lot of people either oblivious of such a clause or are aware of it yet see little other option but to go with it.

Out of cuirousity, what are you expecting your son to do should he attend university? I suspect the contracts will still be prevalent? So his options are paying a lot more elsewhere (with what ill be a similar contract, or living on his own) or taking on this type of contract, what are you telling him to do?

IM guessing youll refuse to be a guarantor or are you budgeting for for the potential liability of 8 of his friends?

spadoosh

need_an_answer wrote: »

In fairness a lot of student letting agencies are coming away from the parent/guarantor being responsible for all the tenants in the property simply because its had a bad press over the years and a lot of parents/guarantors are reading the contract...and indeed questioning it or rejecting it ...as I did.


I've also started to come across the no deposit scenario with the agents/ll's preferring to operate a system of "spreadsheet with suggested costs for damage" passed wholly to the student if in their room and split between the house if in communal areas.

The moral is question everything both in terms of the student when they are looking for something to rent and the parent/guarantor when they too are asked to sign.
There isn't a standard template when it comes to student letting and whilst you think you know what to expect after the first year of uni and a rental it wont follow that years 2 or 3 and beyond will follow the same pattern.

It seems like a common sense approach to do this. Here you go supply and demand, some have wised up to the situation and it woudl effect business so they responded. They knew they where bent over a barrel and had we're offering diagreeable terms.

Ultimately though it seems there is a clear issue with at least some 18 year olds not being able to either fully understand a contract or have the inclination to read one. As the change only seems to have been brought about by parents rejecting being guarantors, it seems experience might be a contributory factor with contracts.

robatwork

parkrunner wrote: »

So they can go after the OP for instance for the full amount and not even chase the other guarantors?

Well I have to be honest as I haven't got their exact contract with me. But from the sounds of it, that's the normal (and pretty unreasonable) terms of these sorts of contracts - all of the tenants and guarantors are responsible for all of the debt, and the LL can go after whichever he so chooses.

Hopefully there's a lesson in here for those with kids of high school/uni age to be diligent before signing.

need_an_answer

spadoosh wrote: »

It seems like a common sense approach to do this. Here you go supply and demand, some have wised up to the situation and it woudl effect business so they responded. They knew they where bent over a barrel and had we're offering diagreeable terms.

Ultimately though it seems there is a clear issue with at least some 18 year olds not being able to either fully understand a contract or have the inclination to read one. As the change only seems to have been brought about by parents rejecting being guarantors, it seems experience might be a contributory factor with contracts.

TBH I only really became wise to it all and questioning of things when I became a LL!

Not many first year students will have ever encountered a tenancy agreement before and their parents probably wrongly think that a student agreement today is the same as what they may well have had years ago or even when they rented privately.

I've seen 10 bed properties as being the norm where my offspring is with this clause of guarantee one guarantee all..I've also seen 4 and 5 beds where there is just guarantor for the one.
The thing that makes the 10 bed attractive to students initially is the price,they can be a lot cheaper per week for a 10 bed than a 4.When you think your saving maybe £40 or even £50 a week some don't look any further than that initial cost saving.Sadly some of these agents and LL's market the cost saving as a big bonus,and its good if everyone in the property is likeminded.However that's not how students tend to make friends and often at the beginning of the year they are just lumped together with others into these large houses and its a "hope for the best" attitude you need to adopt.



The student market is a harsh one and one hell of a learning curve for all,its also one I'm glad I'm not a LL in!

It seems that there is a lot to be said for financial lessons to be introduced at school and even basics about living away from home taught or at least discussed with secondary school age children.

I genuinely believe that a lot of things now are becoming diluted,when I was growing up I helped my dad with DIY and basic home maintenance so its a skill I've hopefully passed on to my children too.

There is a generation that cant do basics and even worse wouldn't know whom to employ to sort out basic handyperson jobs.


But I am digressing and what children and young adults do now as opposed to even 20 years ago could be a whole thread in its own right on the correct board!

Peter_Brown_2

Well as a parent with offspring due to start university soon, I'm reading this with interest.

It seems to me that as a guarantor with J&S liability, the OP has liability to the LL. But the question of Mandy's guarantor's liability towards the OP seems less certain, as we can't see the deed.
Likewise we don't know the details of the contract the new occupier has with Mandy, but I'm not sure that's relevant to OP anyway?

Did OP obtain legal advice prior to signing the guarantor deed? If so, I would get back in touch with my solicitor if it was me.

It also seems an oversight that identity and contact details of the fellow guarantors were not obtained by the OP and / their solicitor.

Assuming no prior legal advice was taken and no contact details known, my first course of action would be to meet with the other guarantors and decide what to do next.

Even if you hired a tracing agent and successfully located Mandy's mum, you would still have to establish a contract liability between her and you. Mandy's mum has a liability to the landlord, but you cannot force the landlord to pursue another party (as far as I'm aware?).

Peter_Brown_2

P.S.
A few posters have criticized the lack of due diligence on the part of the students involved.

By agreeing to act as guarantors, the parents of these students have effectively absolved the students of any real requirements to honour these contracts anyway.

So apart from remaining on good terms with their parents, why should the students worry about the contract details? They have no liability.

It's the parents who need to be undertaking due diligence and probably seeking prior legal advice in this situation.