Guarantor in tenancy agreement

[eequals]

I fail to understand your post in respect of SmallPin's problem LimeLegal.

First off your first paragraph relates solely to matters between the landlord and the tenant. SmallPin is neither of these and he cannot be bound by any agreement between these two except by his own specific agreement.

As to statute, there is nothing in English law which states that notwithstanding the lawful terms of a contract between two parties, a statute can have the power to override any of those terms. This would be contrary to what English law regards as natural justice.

As to what is conditional or not, it is clear from SmallPin's post that there are indeed two conditions to the contract; the first being that he undertook to recompense the landlord in the event of non-payment of rent by his tenant and the second being that his liabilty to do so was to cease from the 27th July 2006.

Joe

[LimeLegal]

Your argument seems to be from a position which cannot be sustained without seeing the actual guarantee document.

If the guarantee doc, as per my previous post is 'open' ie follows the tenancy (which would be usual given its purpose) then the person providing it will be subject to the same length of time as the tenancy including the renewal unless that guarantee specifically excludes this possibility. It is for this purpose many guarantees for tenancies are between all three parties to secure the end payment given the changing state of the tenancy.

If the guarantee is worded in fixed terms then it may be capable of being terminated on the original dates. What I am saying is there is a possibility, more than a slight one on the information provided, that the poster will need to pay under the terms of the guarantee and needs to take specific advice on the nature of the guarantee given.

Having sued for clients on many such guarantees, successfully, I feel it is worth explaining in a bit more depth to this poster.

I hope for this poster's sake they take legal advice early and their guarantee was properly drafted and ended on the first term and was closed to a period not to exceed the initial 12 months. It just doesn't sound like that on the basis of what the poster has provided so far.

In any event I have provided my opinion on this thread and hope there will be a good outcome for them.

[eequals]

We are told that the original tenancy agreement between the tenant and the landlord was for one year. We are also told that the agreement which SmallPin entered into was for that year, i.e. 68th July 2005 to 27th July 2006. If the tenant wished to extend his tenancy then this would be the subject of a new agreement. SmallPin specifically mentions the fact that there is nothing in the original agreement allowing an automatic right to renew and anyway no such statutory right exists since the repeal of the rent act. termination of tenancies are now conditional on their contracts; hence the proliferation of buy-to-let.

In other words, unless you are assuming that SmallPin has misrepresented the position in his posts it will have terminated on the original date; i.e. the 27th July 2006 as you have yourself now pointed out.

Joe

[LimeLegal]

No, actually what I am saying is that if you guarantee a domestic tenancy, do not be misled into thinking all forms of guarantee will expire on the date of the original tenancy. I am referring to Assured tenancies and Assured Shorthold tenancies which form the majority and can both extend the original term with no new agreement as periodic tenancies if not surrendered.

[businessdata]

By acting as a guarantor you are giving the landlord piece of mind that the tenant would pay the rent. The fact that they have stayed in occupation beyond the lease term does not release you from your obligation unless the guarantee section of the agreement is explicit on this point. In the abscence of a new contract being signed a new implied contract is formed along the same terms. As a landlord I would assume that the tenants rent was still guaranteed. One important point that has been touched on is that the Landlord must show they have taken reasonable steps to recover the rent and not just use a guarantor as an easy fall back position. I am not a solicitor but have had property training in the past.

[LimeLegal]

Nice point Business Data, I am actually a solicitor ( retired a couple of months ago) but the purposive approach here is what is normally taken if the matter proceeds to court.