Guarantor for my daughter

[Deleted User]

It seems clear to me that unless you aren't notified of the rent increase, you are still guarantor, according to the wording above. Has the LL informed you as well as your daughter?

gargoyle

I've not heard from anyone since I signed the deed. I thought I would have at least been told of any changes, even contact details and dates of when the agency changes etc. I had to print out the tenancy agreement from my daughters emails and I still never received signed copies of the deed, just an unsigned copy. Like I said it's all very new to me and it just seems a bit strange.

G_M

See? I do wish people would quote relevantly from the start. Save a lot of time!

gargoyle wrote: »

"refers to the proposed assured shorthold tenancy annexed to this deed or any renewal, extension, continuation or statutory periodic tenancy which arises thereafter and includes and rental increase agreed between the landlord and the tenant, provided the guarantor is notified of the increase on the signing of any extension document"

I found this bit after I looked further. So I'm not entirely sure what I need to do. Do I contact them for a new tenancy even though there isn't one? Or do I just keep helping her out when needed without that?

That seems perfectly clear. Your liability as guarantor continues, whatever the rent, "provided the guarantor is notified of the increase on the signing of any extension document".

So if your daughter signs an extension document, at a new rent, and you are notified, you remain liable.


But you said "This is now changing to a periodic tenancy."

So how is the new rent being introduced?

Via mutual agreement? Verbal? Email? What?
Or is there a S13 Notice from the landlord?

Or do I just keep helping her out when needed without that?

Well, she's your daughter. What do mum's do.......?

gargoyle

It's a letter she has been sent with section 13 on it, I assume that's a s13? As much as I appreciate your help, I don't appreciate the tone your last post took. I believed this was a place to ask advice, not receive judgement.

G_M

Fair enough.


Was going to answer further re the S13 but if not appreciated... I'm out.

gargoyle

As I said I appreciate the help, just could you be a bit more respectful when replying. Of course I'm going to help her, but I would rather do it where I know the legalities so I can make sure it is all done properly.

zagubov

Please don't be put off if posters seem "curt". Many are working full-time and have family commitments but are still trying to help out the maximum numbers of queries possible.

This may make some try to be brief and succinct but still have enough impact to force you to see all sides of the problem and this may easily be misinterpreted as abruptness or maybe even rudeness. That's not the intentions, and nobody here gets a kick out of that, or at least I hope they don't.

G_M puts a LOT of effort into sorting out problems on this board.

And also, please don't take offence if his/her advice might seem a bit curt or terse to you but it's not deliberate incivility, it's just that nobody can keep that many plates spinning when you have to painstakingly tease information about poster's problems bit by bit.

We need as much info as you can provide (without identifying you or the other individuals involved).

SmashedAvacado

The problem is the G_M is focusing on the wording of the deed and not the law. Its not as simple as isolating what the document says. There is a legal principle that provides that changes to the lease to the detriment of the guarantor which are not approved by the guarantor can have the effect of releasing the guarantor. The wording of the deed is only one part of the story.

The law is complicated on matters such as this. Its certainly not limited to what has been "agreed" contractually.

Comms69

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

The problem is the G_M is focusing on the wording of the deed and not the law. Its not as simple as isolating what the document says. There is a legal principle that provides that changes to the lease to the detriment of the guarantor which are not approved by the guarantor can have the effect of releasing the guarantor. The wording of the deed is only one part of the story.

The law is complicated on matters such as this. Its certainly not limited to what has been "agreed" contractually.

And that would be for a court to decide. Which ofcourse carries it's own risks.

SmashedAvacado

Comms69 wrote: »

And that would be for a court to decide. Which ofcourse carries it's own risks.

yes it would. but that's the same as anything that is disputed. Ignoring this in providing advice is misleading.