Student co-renter rips off the house

Comms69

spadoosh wrote: »

So you do agree at least that the contract is in favour of the LL in these instances? it depends what you mean, the landlord sets the terms, yes

You say theres choice, well that depends entirely on your circumstances. Standard lets tend not to allow for 9 people sharing. sharing with 8 others is a choiceWithout 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) possibly, my 3 bee in a uni resort city is 600 a month...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. thats a choice

Its not confusing at all, youve not understood. You are not liable for my mortgage if i default. no but I didn’t choose to form a contract jointly with youThe 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. absolutely there is no other way, you cannot force someone to let to someone else

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.but that’s a choice; of university, of flat mates and of landlord

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. sounds like both parties were then at fault


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. only in the same way it’s ridiculous for an 18 year old to have the vote

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. its a choice still, including going to university

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. thats what they’re doing now, standard domestic let’s at high prices

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. ll has an asset, tenants wants to use that asset; morally neither party is forcing the other to do anything

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. so stop doing it, let the whole house of cards collapse

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? i live in a city with a top 10 university, and a huge campus so it won’t be an issue

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

Neither; if push comes to shove I will rent a property for him myself.

Peter_Brown_2

need_an_answer wrote: »

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.

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!

People (of any age) usually learn when they have real responsibility for the outcomes of their decisions.

parkrunner

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.

I've seen several threads over time about this and that one sentence now makes it clear why LLs go down this route.

need_an_answer

Peter_Brown wrote: »

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?).

Have you had a look at any of the guarantor forms yet?
They can be a minefield in themselves, and some are so woolley that you can re knit anything you want with them!!!

I doubt the OP obtained legal advice but then again I never have and wonder if you will ?

The guarantor form sometimes wont even hold up legally ...yes I've seen some real cobbled together ones and actually what they do prey on is the integrity of other parents paying up and doing the right thing.

The fact that half the students have no real connection with eachother rather than being a friend of a friend makes it even more difficult when you suggest as a parent a "parents meet up"

I'm not meaning to dumb down your suggestion but in the 2 years we've been in the student rental scene we have some of the housemates but never managed to bump into a parent yet !


This years guarantors form for us consisted of name and address of employer please and could you kindly confirm you are a home owner!
We are about to embark on year 3 within a single studio flat for offspring.
Alittle more expensive per week but just they and their 4 walls!

silvercar

Has the sub-tenant been paying rent to Mandy? Or to the landlord? Or to no-one?

You may not be able to track down Mandy, but you certainly know where the sub-tenant lives!

Assuming the sub-tenant has been paying rent to Mandy, then you need to tell her to stop immediately. She can then pay rent to the landlord.

The mistake here was allowing the sub-tenant to be a sub-tenant. Far better to explain to the landlord that Mandy has gone and amend the tenancy to include the sub-tenant as a full tenant.

macman

Comms69 wrote: »

Wow....

the landlord CANNOT REMOVE ANYONE! That is not up for debate.

It might be subletting, but at this point it’s not clear. She definitely has rights, but they may be contractual ‘lodger-esque’, rather than statutory.

So what is it, if it's not subletting? She is not a lodger, which would require the LL to live in the same property., nor has she made any 'lodger-esque' contract with the LL. She is not a legal tenant, since Mandy had no legal right to sublet.
She is living in the property as a guest and as such has no right of occupation at all.

Comms69

macman wrote: »

So what is it, if it's not subletting? She is not a lodger, which would require the LL to live in the same property., nor has she made any 'lodger-esque' contract with the LL. She is not a legal tenant, since Mandy had no legal right to sublet.
She is living in the property as a guest and as such has no right of occupation at all.

I suspect she’s an excluded occupier with a contract for the room, but no tenancy rights.

I could bore you with the details of why it’s not subletting and so forth; but I don’t think you’d believe me.

Peter_Brown_2

silvercar wrote: »

Has the sub-tenant been paying rent to Mandy? Or to the landlord? Or to no-one?

You may not be able to track down Mandy, but you certainly know where the sub-tenant lives!

Assuming the sub-tenant has been paying rent to Mandy, then you need to tell her to stop immediately. She can then pay rent to the landlord.

The mistake here was allowing the sub-tenant to be a sub-tenant. Far better to explain to the landlord that Mandy has gone and amend the tenancy to include the sub-tenant as a full tenant.

Agreed.
I think the risk of Mandy taking the new occupier to court for breach of contract is very unlikely in reality (even if theoretically possible).
But if the new occupier pays rent to the LL directly, will that give her tenancy rights? I don't see the problem with this. Just exchange one tenant for another.

Peter_Brown_2

Comms69 wrote: »

I suspect she’s an excluded occupier with a contract for the room, but no tenancy rights.

I could bore you with the details of why it’s not subletting and so forth; but I don’t think you’d believe me.

New occupier is not paying rent to a landlord who is resident and shares her facilities. If she was paying one of the tenants who is still in residence, I believe she would be a lodger / excluded occupier.

Comms69

Peter_Brown wrote: »

Agreed.
I think the risk of Mandy taking the new occupier to court for breach of contract is very unlikely in reality (even if theoretically possible).
But if the new occupier pays rent to the LL directly, will that give her tenancy rights? I don't see the problem with this. Just exchange one tenant for another.

Yes, a tenancy can be created simply by occupation and acceptance ofcrent