Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
    • The Barclay Card conditions is complete. There was only 3 pages. This had old address on. Full CCA. 15 pages. The only personal info is my name and address. Current Address The rest just like a generic document.  Barclays CCA 260424.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Renewal Assured Shorthold Tenancy - Guarantor still liable for arrears, even though I didn't sign?


Guest Martin-OT
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4853 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Guest Martin-OT

Hi All

 

I am in a bit of a tricky situation and wondered if any of you could help me with a question -

 

In DEC 2007 I signed as guarantor for a friend for a 6 month 'ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCY'. There was no arrears so it was all fine,

 

In JUNE 2008 the tennant signed a renewal for 1 year, it was called a 'RENEWAL ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCY AGREEMENT',

 

He has now fallen into arrears because he is self employed and his business in now failing (given the current climate). The rent was not paid on 21 DEC 2008, and I have been called to make payment:-x,

 

I did not sign for a further period in JUNE 2008, so assumed my liability ended then. I wasn't aware of this renewal until it had been signed, no letter, no phone call, Etc. from the letting agency to inform me of my continued liability. Rightly so, the tennant, didn't feel the need to contact me as there was no mention of my name in this new lease,

 

The tennant has told me he needs to leave on 21 JANUARY 2008, as he cannot afford the rent and is now facing bankruptcy. He has an £800 deposit with the letting agency so this *could* cover the arrears of £700 - I know it dosn't exactly work like this however,

 

I am then in the situation of where I could potentially be liable for 5 months rent if no tennant is found.

 

I believe that the letting agency have acted irresponsibly/unfairly in not informing me of my continued liability.

 

Could you tell me if they are within their right to ask me for payment? Are there any clauses Etc. I could look for in the renewal lease that *should* tell me of my continued liability?

 

I have both leases infront of me, so I can respond back quickly with any additional details you need to know,

 

Cheers guys

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've included a couple of links that might help.

 

http://www.accentproperty.com/pdf/Blank%20Guarantor%20Agreement.pdf

 

this first link is a draft Guarantor Agreement which states :

This Guarantor Agreement refers to the current tenancy being undertaken and any extension or renewal of that tenancy. All references to the Landlord herein shall be deemed to include the Landlord's Agent or any person authorised to act on the Landlord's behalf.

 

Guarantors - TenantVERIFY

This second link says :

Landlords should also bear in mind that any variation in the agreement, including the fixed-term coming to an end and tenancy renewal, if done without the guarantor's consent, will discharge the guarantor's liability.

The guarantor may need to sign a new guarantor agreement on tenancy renewal if you want their obligations to continue.

 

 

So it really depends on the wording of the tenancy and Guarantor Agreements.

 

Please note: I have no qualifications in this area and any advice offered is given in good faith.

 

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/Ombudsman-news/40/40_setoff.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Martin-OT

Hi, thank you for the above reply ^

 

There is a clause 5, at the end of the original lease (an attachment),

 

It says,

 

"The Guarantor's obligations under this deed are not restricted to the fixed term created by the agreement and remain fully effective during any continuation of the term"

 

Could you provide any more insight to that?

 

As I say, on renewal I wasn't even informed it was being renewed, surely that isn't right? What if the tennant had signed 5 year lease?!

 

Cheers,

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid it looks as if you may be liable for at least December & January's payments and any further payments up to and including June or when they re-let the property whichever is the earlier.

 

Ref the Clause 5, you state this is an attachment. Presumably this was there when your friend signed the original lease and you signed the guarantee, i.e. not added on later?

 

Sorry I can't be of more help, but someone with more knowledge about tenancy/guarantor matters should be along later.

 

enamae.

Please note: I have no qualifications in this area and any advice offered is given in good faith.

 

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/Ombudsman-news/40/40_setoff.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Martin-OT

Hi, thanks again for the reply ^,

 

I signed it as an attachment of the original 6 month lease, but not the new 12 month lease (my name isn't mentioned in the new lease anywhere, or a guarantor for that matter), the lease was made between the landlord and tennant,

 

Just find it all a bit out of order, that they do not make you aware of your continued liability if the tennant renews, just for simple reasons - if we had fallen out of touch Etc.

 

I would appeciate any more feedback because it seems like I will be spending a bit of time on the phone on Monday!

 

Cheers,

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin,

 

If you signed up to this:

 

"The Guarantor's obligations under this deed are not restricted to the fixed term created by the agreement and remain fully effective during any continuation of the term"

 

then I would say that you could have been liable if the tenancy had continued as a Statutory Periodic, but that you can reasonably argue that issuing of a new contract resolved you of your obligation.

 

At the very least, a statutory periodic tenancy can be terminated at one month's notice which reduces your obligation, whereas by signing a 12 month contract they have attempted to tie you into an obligation that is twice as long as you originally agreed to.

 

A regular poster here (Aequitas) argues that since you yourself are not a beneficiary of the contract, that you have received no "consideration". Without consideration there can be no contract (basic law of contracts). Aequitas essentially argues that it is extremely hard to draw up an enforceable guarantee agreement.

 

In your position I would simply write:

 

"I did not agree to be a guarantor for the new 12 month contract, and therefore dispute my liability. If you do not agree, please send copies of the relevant contracts signed by me that you believe make me liable."

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

help required renewal assured shorthold tenancy guarantors

 

having just lost my case against the guarantor at great personal expense

 

my agency didn't get the guarantor to sign the new agreement and even those agency solcitors told me i was cover by section 27, section 19 , section 1 extentions this was not the verdict of the judge.

The judge deem the contracted as a new tenancy agreement so you have nothing to worry about.:shock:

 

only other thing he took in to consideration was you aware of this tenancy agreement and my tenant simply said done its on her own :-o

 

finally if you are a landlord don't expect anything from your agency they just say you didn't ask for it. even the ombudsman found in the agency favour which took me by surprise

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi, Martin-OT.

 

I wandered what the outcome of this as I am in the same situation. My Guarantee Agreement for residential tenenacies

 

Was signed by me and the letting agent (not the landlord) but was not witnessed even though it said 'signed as a deed'

 

Also I signed the document in 2007 but it now has been dated 2010 so I can only assume it was originally signed without a date.

 

Any help would be appreciated

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...