Being pursued by student accommodation landlord despite never living there or having guarantor

nosleep09

Hi

I have previously posted about this but I has been a while and I have only recently been able to gather the information requested

I'm hoping someone can't give me some advise regarding an issue my son has. He was attending Winchester University and living on campus for the first year of his degree. Near the end of the first year he decided he was going to live off capmus in the second year and found accommodation from a landlord who got him to sign a tenancy agreement but required a guarantor from him in order to move in.  Both me and his mother were unable to be a guarantor, so he was in the process of asking his grandmother to act as one for him, but it never got as far as him getting one as he decided against moving in to the accommodation. He told the Landlord, who stated that he would still be liable to pay the rent unless he could find another student to take his place. He was unable to do so and this landlord is now pursuing him for rent arrears for somewhere he never lived and never had a guarantor for, how is this legal? Is there anything we can do? the landlord sent a letter stating owes £4500 and will be pursued in court if he doesn't pay

below is the part of the tenancy agreement relating to to guarantors

Brie

Has he talked to the student housing office at the uni?  Citizen's advice?

I think on a previous post it was suggested that the LL should have to prove that no one else rented the property.  Or perhaps your son could find proof that someone else lived there.   

And I think I asked if nothing had been received from the LL.  I've never heard of a LL who would let 8 or 9 months slip by without enquiring why no rent was being paid.  Likewise why would he assume your son intended to move in if there was no deposit paid?  And did your son ever receive keys to the property?  

Is there anything on the tenancy agreement about a deposit being required?  I would assume that if no deposit was paid the tenancy would be considered cancelled.  But I am neither a LL or a lawyer.

Flugelhorn

Curious - surely they can't have signed contract  without guarantor?

itsthelittlethings

Did he ever sign a contract?

silvercar

13.6 isn’t a valid term for starters. I’m wondering if the contract has commenced if no rent has changed hands and no keys supplied. Was there a deposit, and if so was it protected?

nosleep09

He did pay a deposit of £350, which was kept by the Landlord. My son has messaged one of the students who did move in to ask if someone else moved in instead of him, he's waiting for a response. He was never given the keys, he informed the Landlord that he wouldn't be moving in over a month before the tenancy was due to start, we have emails from the agents acting on behalf of the landlord, ill upload those too 

nosleep09

nosleep09 said:

He did pay a deposit of £350, which was kept by the Landlord. My son has messaged one of the students who did move in to ask if someone else moved in instead of him, he's waiting for a response. He was never given the keys, he informed the Landlord that he wouldn't be moving in over a month before the tenancy was due to start, we have emails from the agents acting on behalf of the landlord, ill upload those too 

Just a correction, I was told by his mother that he paid a deposit, but he has just messaged me to say that he DIDN'T pay a deposit

saajan_12

He legally owes the rent, because he signed to do so. The guarantor is irrelevant - its poorly drafted so much of it would be unenforceable (ie the LL loses out on having a guarantor) but in any case its a tenant obligation, so breaching the contract wouldn't allow the person breaching to get out of it. Moving in is his choice, and doesn't change the obligations. 

The only defense is if someone else actually moved in, and hence the LL effectively denied the T occupation, but that's up to son to prove his defense. 

silvercar

Sounds like a group tenancy, rather than individual rooms in an HMO. If individual rooms then the others wouldn’t need to be involved at all. Seems like the landlord decided to accept the group, despite not all having guarantors. This isn’t so surprising as all the tenants are jointly liable for the rent and therefore all the guarantors are jointly liable should the full rent not be paid.

It does mean the landlord can pursue all the tenants for missing rent, not just your son. Morally it would be your son, but legally it could be any of them.