Help We are Guarantors to a Short Term Assured Property

[Pollyandharvey]

And yes, youve guessed it, the tenants have defaulted. not once but twice. The first time it happened, we paid up £2400. The tenants were our daughter and son in law, but their marriage had broken down. He was the wage earner, she unemployed. He moved out. Hence the arrears. We wrote and told the Agents, she could not afford to continue living in the house, that we could not afford to continue to be Guarantors. They, told us, she would have to sign a new lease in her name and find new guarantors. But as owners had said no DHSS, she would have to leave. In the meantime, the owners, "unofficial agents" (their old neighbours) helped her to complete housing benefit forms. She did not get enough HB, so had to top up. In the meantime our relationship with our daughter broke down, only getting to hear what was going on from grand children. We adamant, this was not what we signed up for.

18 months down road now told she owes 6 months rent £5000, and they say we have to pay. Find out no new contract in place, we still Guarantors. Owner wants us to pay and her to stay, as "she looks after property"! Neverthless, official Agents have finally persuaded him to start eviction proceedings and chase us for the rent. We retired and just cannot afford this. We say, this comes under Unfair Contracts intenancy agreements act" Would really appreciate advice here.

[labman]

Re: Help We are Guarantors to a Short Term Assured Property

I can't help you directly with an answer, but I would have thought one of the first things you should do is to persuade your daughter to vacate the property in order that no further fees can be incurred by yourselves.

Why was no new contract drawn up? What were the terms of the old contract? Does that have any escape clause in it?

[Pollyandharvey]

Re: Help We are Guarantors to a Short Term Assured Property

The original lease was for 6 months, their solicitors tell us our Guarantee is without time limit. We have no right to end our guarantee, and that it ends only when the owner agrees or at the end of the tenancy.

We acknowledged our responsibility with the first arrears.

But I do not think (hope) it is as cut and dried as that. The fact is, it was a joint tenancy, which clearly, she could not afford on her own. after we paid the first lot of arrears we told the Agents of the change in her circumstance, that her husband had left her with 3 children, that she did not work. we felt the whole thing was too risky for us to commit to, and really it was for the owner too. But he seemed hell bent on keeping her in there. We have been told by the official managing agents, that they had advised him many times to end her tenancy, but he refused. The official agents say they could never get her to sign a new agreement, she was either out, or refused to answer the door! The owner, lives in New Zealand.

as for our daughter she is, we understand being evicted, believes we are not her guarantors and it should be nothing to do with us, or at least that is what she has told the Agents.

We feel that both the Owner and the Agents must share responsibility for these losses. The Agents for not getting her into a new lease, the owner for wilfully ignoring best advice of his Agents. We feel it passes the theshold of reasonableness, in that it is not reasonable to lock us into a lease, where the tenant had defaulted and could not get full housing benefit, and ignore his own agents best advice. Then come looking to us to pay his losses. We have been told to pay, and they wont start proceedings. But we feel we have a case. But do we?

[bluebottle]

Re: Help We are Guarantors to a Short Term Assured Property

You need to speak to your local Law Centre as soon as possible. You can obtain free legal advice from the Law Centre. I would certainly question what the agents and their solicitors say. Agents are not exactly known for their, how shall we say, ability to present a true picture.

[Guest]

Re: Help We are Guarantors to a Short Term Assured Property

I couldn't read this as I don't have time, but the whole guarantor issue is absurd - it's an INSURANCE issue!

I have been refused when offering to pay for landlord's insurance to cover rent out of my own pocket because I had no guarantor.

They would only accept a guarantor who could potentially end up in this mess!

I would never do that to anybody!

Hello? It's an INSURANCE issue!!! (why are people so thick?)

Having now read the first post (only) - I was wondering if it was an unfair term.

But it's not just a term - the whole idea is unfair, and there is only one term - you pay!!!

Legally, you'd have to go after the girl and claim negligence - she should have got out by now.
And letting agent/landlord should have evicted to minimise their losses.

You paid out a reasonable amount, the other parties should have sorted it out more swiftly from there.