To let landlord start to evict my "friend"

[listsandbudgets]

I agreed to be my "friend's" rent guarantor 2 years ago. I knew it was a risk but stupidly trusted him. He was getting full housing benefit so I didn't think he'd have a problem covering payments.

Then 3 months ago got a letter from landlord asking for over £1500 from me (3 months rent). Nasty shock but I took the risk so got to deal with it. Landlord has been trying to sort it out with him for 6 months before contacting me but heard nothing. Landlord has been very good and negotiated a deal with me which basically means I'll pay the money over a period of time. He's also agreed that any further arrears incurred by my friend will mean he will start eviction proceedings rather than chasing me for it. As friend is single dad to 3 boys under 10 he says he's been much more patient than he normally is with non paying tenants.

So I'm paying my "friend's" arrears and he won't talk to me. He's not answering his landline or mobile (both have caller display), has blocked me on facebook and even ignored a registered letter. L

Landlord has suggested as he's not communicating with us at all that he will start eviction proceedings in the hope of making him talk. He says the first step is just a letter wanring him he's about to take legal action unless he's contacted within 7 days. AIBU to encourage him to do so in the hope it shocks "friend" into facing up to what's happening?

Being a guatentor is not providing a landlord with rental insurance. I feel the op needs to see a solitor to see exactly what her liabilities are.

With an AST you do not need grounds to evict after the initial 6 month or 12 month period. The op can argue that the landlord should have issued an eviction notice as soon as the tenant had missed two rent payments. It is quicker to issue a section 21 than going to court. That would be a maximum liability of 3 months for the guarantor as a sensible landlord will have taken a deposit of at least a month's rent. There is no need for the landlord to go to court unless the tenant decides to squat. In the event of a tenant squatting the original contract is over. The tenant does not pay rent for the squatting period, but compensation to the landlord decided by a court.

We were awarded legal costs when we were evicted a tenant. Our bad tenant did not have a guarantor so we were hit.

Being a guarantor is really providing rental insurance. Guarantors are usually used where it wouldn't be possible to get rental insurance (tenants on benefits, students, not earning a sufficient multiple of the rent, bad credit record etc). The guarantor is liable for anything the tenant is liable for but hasn't paid.

From the internet: From the perspective of renting a property it means that where a tenant has a guarantor, be that a family member, friend or business colleague, or even the company they work for then if the tenant fails to uphold their obligations under the tenancy agreement they have entered into then the guarantor will be liable to uphold them. That might be paying the rent, paying for damages or even court costs incurred or all three !

It isn't quicker to use a Section 21 at all. The last time I issued one I had to wait 8 weeks for the court to look at the papers and another 8 weeks for the baliff. And that was after the initial nearly three months of the notice I had to give. Also if you use a Section 21 you have to take separate court proceedings to get any missed rental payments awarded to you.

In this case though if the LL didn't issue a Section 8 as soon as the rent was two months in arrears, then I would fight liability for the rent due from the time the Section 8 could have been issued and the date it was actually issued.

The tenant is still liable to pay rent if they stay after their notice has expired or after a possession order has been issued. It's called something else though, with a weird Latin name I've forgotten.

Anyway I have no idea why I'm arguing about this at 4.30am! As you say Reallytired, legal advice would be a very good idea for the OP!

There are two types of guarantor agreement:

1. The Guarantor clauses are part of the Tenancy Agreement Form, which the tenant, landlord and guarantor all sign
2. A Deed of Guarantee, which has a separate contract.

The OP needs to carefully read the document they signed, which should define obligations clearly. Full rent arrears and covering any damage (excl. wear & tear) are standard for each type, possibly with interest. Legal costs of eviction may or may not be.

If you think the LL didn't act sufficiently promptly, or you are unclear about your obligations / rights, then do see a solicitor.
If solicitors agree to act for you, they'll normally require payment for a set number of hours work in advance, with further payment in advance if the matter is prolonged.

The tenant is not required to pay back the guarantor unless you have a separate legal agreement to do so, but it sounds unlikely anyway that he would be able or willing to.

Update - I've just had an email asking if I'd be kind enough to help him with his rent

I've responded saying Im already paying his arrears and unless he sorts himself out NOW the next thing I'm going to be paying for is his eviciton.

So so angry. Not a word of apology - not even an acknowledgement that I'm helping him.

What a cheeky bastard.

Op that sounds terrible. Your 'friend' is a real user. It sounds like you have learned the hard way not to be a guarantor.

I have no expertise in this field but I hope someone will come along soon to offer more advice.

I contacted social services over concerns of a neighbour seriously not coping with children and money etc. i'd become way to involved and it wasn't enough.

They negotiated with landlord, sorted out missed payments along with housing issues like the cooker, helped the family learn to budget, got them rehoused to near transport. They weren't out to cease the children (but there were significant concerns in this case). They did help and it enabled me to be less involved.

You could phone and talk to someone anonymously and see if they would help if you supply details.

I thought about that MisForMumNotMaid but the reason he has the boys is because his ex partner remarried someone who abused them. Boys were moved into foster care very suddenly (taken from school without any warming to them) and had a bad time there then were moved to "friend" who was living in a bed sit at the time so understandably had to find somewhere to live quickly - hence me ending up in this position.

Sadly the boys are terrified of social workers after their experiences. I know this is a completely different situation to previously (their dad may not be a good money manager but don't think he's hitting them and worse :( ) I just don't want to frigten them again if there's another way

Flippin eck - your "friend" has some chutzpah . Have you heard any more since his earlier email?

Oh dear

Well done in standing up for yourself OP.

But it really sounds like there does need to be some social services involvement again for this family.

Oh dear

Well done in standing up for yourself OP.

But it really sounds like there does need to be some social services involvement again for this family.

For my situation I think I had become an enabler. By feeding the children, doing washing, washing the children, providing clothes and lots of childcare, loaning money to the family etc I was actually dragging out a situation that was unsustainable.

If they are to be evicted part of the process I understand, maybe wrongly based on other threads on here, will involve social services again because there will be homeless children.

If they get involved sooner theres a smaller chance of the children just being hoiked off to foster care and the powers that be having the chance to find family accomodation.

Sometimes caring is very painful and there isn't a right answer its just the best of a bad situation to work out a way forwards for everyone, yourself included and you should not be underestimating your own needs in this.

Just wanted to say that it would be a real risk to go to court on a section 8 (rent arrears) alone and in my experience no solicitor would reccommend it, therefore a section 21 should be served asap as this is guaranteed possession whereas a section 8 is not. In the circumstances described a sympathetic judge may give the tenant a second chance if the possession is requested with a section 8 and then the landlord is stuck with the tenant and the guarantor will still be in place. OP I know this is not down to you but if you do speak to the landlord again I would suggest a section 21 is served straight away even if he doesn't take it straight to court it will be in place and may give you friend the shake up he needs. Good luck