Failure to carry out affordability check

Jaytee

@RHemmings Thank you so much for going to the trouble at this hour! I will do some digging.
 I need to sleep on it and find out the facts before deciding whether panic is warranted.
Thank you to everyone who helped. The generosity of this forum is amazing!

eddddy

RHemmings said:

Basically clause 1f says that the EA must take particular care in the case of clients who may be disadvantaged due to a number of possible reasons, including age and lack of knowledge. 

Section 2, on duty of care, may also apply. Especially 2b, if the client (tenant) has been given bad advice, then that breaks the code as suitable advice should be given.

Just to clarify - unfortunately, the tenant isn't a 'client'. 

Instead, the tenant is a 'consumer'. 

• Clause 2b relates to the 'client', so that isn't relevant to the OP's son.

• But clause 1f relates to 'consumers', so that includes the OP's son.

FWIW, here is the definition of the client:

23e Client. A person who has instructed you to let a property on their behalf in the United Kingdom (excluding Scotland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man). Where appropriate, this definition includes a client’s properly appointed representative.

Here's the definition of the consumer:

23j Consumer. Refers to an actual or potential tenant or landlord.

HampshireH

If you refuse to be guarantor (which presumably you would) the landlord is unlikely to take them, your son won't sign a contract and he loses 450.

Followed by a life lesson in taking responsibility and not making ridiculous commitments he cant afford. How did he possibly think he could afford the rent and bills plus food and life when it's that high.

Emmia

I do understand your concern, but legally your son is an adult and unfortunately means that he should be allowed to make his own way in the world, and mistakes. Unfortunately you can't protect him forever (but you also shouldn't sign the guarantor agreement, if that's required).

If this enterprise means blowing his inheritance/savings then, perhaps you should just let him? Is he otherwise sensible? Any risk of two becoming three? 

silvercar

The max student loan in London for 24/25 is over £13k. So their joint income is over £28k. 

£2,200 may seem a lot, but they need somewhere to live and may prefer to spend that little bit more to get somewhere half decent. It may be that the location reduces their travel costs.

Of course there is no obligation on you to be a guarantor. Sometimes we do things for our kids because otherwise their choices would be limited. Not saying you should be a guarantor in this case, but parents often act as guarantors for student offspring as otherwise the accommodation choices they have are the grotty end of the market.

itsthelittlethings

Why on earth didn't they live further out?

silvercar

itsthelittlethings said:

Why on earth didn't they live further out?

Travel costs? Commuting time? 

Marvel1

If you allow him to carry on as others said he is an adult and needs ro me his own choices right or wrong and learn.  What I wouldn't be though is a guarantor.

ThisIsWeird

Hi Jaytee.

Good luck today :-)

Calm...calm...calm... What's the worst that can happen? Cough.

I am no 'legal', but suspect strongly that the 'agreement' is just that - they've taken down the advert, and your son has paid £450 to 'secure' the property until the legal bits are done. Ie, almost certainly 'all' he'll lose at the mo' if he backs out is the £450. 

I also suspect that the agent agreed to remove the ad based on your son saying he could provide a guarantor - you.

When you meet up, ask your son to show you his 'sums'. It should become instantly clear that this rent will be unaffordable, espec once the other expenses are added - mainly CT, energy, fud, travel. And, living in London, I doubt that only luv is going to feed their existence - they will want to go out, and that is usually silly money again.   

Hopefully, after adding up the 'sums', they will realise that they simply cannot do this on his salary and her loan. For the next year at least - until she graduates and gets a similar job to him - they will need to find a double or two room(s) in a shared house - and good luck even with that.

So, all I can suggest is to ask them to explain how it'll work - don't bother telling them (that's 'argument' territory). Put the onus fully on to them to explain. If they have worked it out, they should be able to present their calcs. You just askaskask; What about this...? And have you taken into account that? And then make it clear that you will not, cannot, be a guarantor for such an exercise.

The only outcome should then become obvious to them. I can see no way the agent would take them up on this without a guarantor. If they do, then it's entirely on your son and GF to prove you wrong and/or learn a life lesson.

I presume you are not, for a nano-second, entertaining being a G'r? I can almost guarantee that this will end badly if you do. Oh, the arguments, as you ask them to explain, each month, their living costs and expenditure when they fail to meet the rent, and you dig into your pocket; How many times have you gone out? You went where?! Is that the third concert you've been to in... etc etc etc   

Oh, and however your meeting ends up, this issue is transient, and one day soon you'll both look back on it and laugh... The same thing will be happening countless times across the country. 

RHemmings

eddddy said:

RHemmings said:

Basically clause 1f says that the EA must take particular care in the case of clients who may be disadvantaged due to a number of possible reasons, including age and lack of knowledge. 

Section 2, on duty of care, may also apply. Especially 2b, if the client (tenant) has been given bad advice, then that breaks the code as suitable advice should be given.

Just to clarify - unfortunately, the tenant isn't a 'client'. 

Instead, the tenant is a 'consumer'. 

• Clause 2b relates to the 'client', so that isn't relevant to the OP's son.

• But clause 1f relates to 'consumers', so that includes the OP's son.

FWIW, here is the definition of the client:

23e Client. A person who has instructed you to let a property on their behalf in the United Kingdom (excluding Scotland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man). Where appropriate, this definition includes a client’s properly appointed representative.

Here's the definition of the consumer:

23j Consumer. Refers to an actual or potential tenant or landlord.

Thanks.

In section 2, I would say that sections 2a and 2e are most relevant to the current situation.

Though, we don't yet know if the EA is a member of TPOS, or PRS.