Am I still a guarantor?

Reply to the comment left by Noseyrosey at 01/08/2023 - 15:06
What is that in £'s?

If it comes to less than a couple of grand, you might as well just pay it and save yourself the grief.

If its lots more, you might find a law firm who will pick over the bones and look for a technicality that might work on appeal.

However, at the end of the day, you stood as guarantor and now you are being held responsible. It the person you stood guarantor for has defaulted, you really should pay up, then go after them. Its not the landlords fault and it shouldn't be at his expense.

Pay up!

Reply to the comment left by Smiffy at 01/08/2023 - 22:07"However, at the end of the day, you stood as guarantor and now you are being held responsible." begs the question.
The legal issues appear to be:
1. Was a new tenancy entered into?
2. If so, was the wording in the original guarantee sufficient to make the OP a guarantor of that new tenancy?
Unfortunately, it appears Noseyrosey did not get advice and the judgement has gone against her.
By signing a guarantee of one tenancy you do not automatically become a guarantor of a future tenancy between the landlord and the tenant. A few years ago I successfully resisted a claimed for a five figure sum on precisely this point.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 02/08/2023 - 11:05
also need to consider the guarantors initial intent, and the following may well fall outside the letter of the law.

If the guarantor only intended to cover the first six months, then that should have been documented.

If the guarantor intended to cover the tenants occupation of the property with no specific deadline, then the guarantor should be covering it, assuming the "new" tenancy agreement didn't change the terms.

What we don't know is why this "new" tenancy agreement was created.

What we shouldn't be doing, and by that I include "law firms" is finding a technicality that deprives the landlord from his income. It is bad enough the tenant has defaulted and forced the landlord to take legal action as it is.

What we do know, is the tenant, the property, the landlord and the guarantor are all essentially the same. So morally, the guarantor should be picking up the tab, and then they can pursue the tenant they covered.

Reply to the comment left by Smiffy at 02/08/2023 - 13:05
I agree, landlords should not be assisting tenants or guarantors to avoid their responsibilities on technicalities. That is what we generally vilify Shelter for doing.

Reply to the comment left by Smiffy at 02/08/2023 - 13:05
The law rightly protects guarantors. It is open to the landlord to let the tenancy become periodic in which case a well-drafted guarantee will endure. What I suspect has happened is that the landlords' agents got the tenant to sign up a new tenancy in order to charge a new fee. They should have asked for the guarantee to be renewed.
I resent the suggestion that I am assisting tenants or guarantors to avoid their responsibilities on technicalities.

It might help you to consider a hypothetical example. L and T sign a lease for 12 months at a rent of £1000 a month. G signs as guarantor with the loose wording of the sort Noseyrosey mentions. After 12 months the lease is renewed for a term of 5 years at £3000 a month. Should G be held liable as guarantor of this new obligation?

If landlords are taking guarantees, they and their letting agents need to understand how guarantees operate and to ensure they follow the rules.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 02/08/2023 - 13:40
In this case the law did not protect the guarantor, the judge found against her which suggests that the guarantee remained valid and enforceable.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 02/08/2023 - 13:40
in my post I did state "all essentially the same", clearly a hypothetical rent hike from £1k to £3k would be very much outside that.

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 02/08/2023 - 16:00
We don't know that. It was only in a county court and if the guarantor was not present/not represented the argument may not have been put properly.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 03/08/2023 - 12:16Which is why I said early on that she needs proper legal advice i.e. based on the specifics of the case after thorough consideration of all the facts and issues.

I struggle to see how an order could have been made against her if she was not a party to the proceedings.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 03/08/2023 - 12:16
the only mention of change in the whole thread appears to be

"I thought that but on her rent statement it shows the £50 payment and says resign fee we presume it’s because the landlord changed names ?"

Transfer of tenancy to different landlord would not release the guarantor (or tenant) from the contract unless they chose to.

No idea what a "resign fee" would be charged for but it can't be a new tenancy, can it?

But ultimately, it appears the Judge (for once) has seen sense on practical terms and held the guarantor liable, which is what they agreed to in the first place. I'm sure a Judge would have thrown it out if he had reasonable (and often unreasonable) doubt.