Jump to content

picklefactory

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. By the way....thank you all very much for all the advice and your valuable time.
  2. Nope...no other pickle relations, to my knowledge, and this is for 10 tenants and direct with the landlord...just a coinkydink on the name. He clearly has accepted the agreement without the guarantors, as no guarantor has signed but he's still pushing ahead.
  3. Ha...it may possibly have been beneficial had I mentioned the tenancy start date initially....Doh!! That sounds like a logical step, thank you.
  4. Thank you steampowered, I will pass on the advice, that is very helpful. I'm not sure the 'sensible solution' will become a reality though. I get the feeling from son that most of the others have already decided against it now, and unless the joint and several terms were somehow excluded from the guarantor agreement, I doubt the guarantors would sign, I certainly wouldn't. I will happily take responsibility for my son's, single share of the rent etc, but I refuse to be held liable for others potentially defaulting. I'm hoping something sensible comes out of it.
  5. Thanks again. Sounds like they may be up a particular creek without a paddle then. I think this will certainly be a life lesson for them all, if nothing else and I hope it won't get to the ugly stage anyway. It is a real mess now, as there are so many of them involved, trying to get an agreement between them all now is unlikely, and most of them are actively looking elsewhere, so I have no clue how this will end up. I hope it doesn't go too far, as I don't see how anyone can gain. They all have zero assets or employment, so not sure what the landlord could gain by pursuing it through the court. At least it all happened before they moved in, the agreement wasn't due to take effect until June for them to move in, so I assume he has existing tenants in place.
  6. Thanks for the response uncle B. (I still miss the Wombles) My son is going to seek help from the university, but I suppose I'm trying to pre-empt any potential ugliness. This is why I was hoping for some clarification. The Office of Fair Trading site states insisting on tenants to have insurance is unreasonable, quote below "4.8 Unnecessary insurance requirements - we consider that whether tenants wish to insure their own personal belongings is a matter for them and that it is unreasonable for the landlord to make this a contractual requirement. " Also on the break clause, the OFT states "3.65 Landlords sometimes choose to use a 'break' clause allowing them to bring the agreement to an end on service of two months' notice. We would object to such a term if it was not balanced by a similar provision allowing the tenant to give notice in the same way. " I have no idea if the opinions of the OFT bear any relevance at all, or are they just that...opinions? Do they have no bearing on anything in reality? Thanks again
  7. Hello folks. I'm hoping for some advice on tenancy agreements please? Sorry for the long read, but I think I need to be as clear as I can. My son is at Uni and he and 9 friends decided they wanted to share a house. Being young and foolish, they all got pressured into signing the tenancy agreement, as they were assured they would lose it if they didn't sign quickly. None of them clearly understood the agreement and all of them required guarantors. I am currently guarantor for my son in his present, single accommodation, absolutely no problems there, but when I read the new tenancy agreement for the proposed new house, I raised numerous concerns and refused to sign as guarantor. Like many such, it is a joint and several tenancy agreement, but how any guarantor would ever sign one of those is a mystery to me. I am perfectly happy to take responsibility for my son's rent and actions, he's a great kid, but I would never agree to take joint responsibility for 9 total strangers. The guarantor agreement also stipulated a joint and several responsibility. I also noticed a number of clauses, in the main tenancy agreement, that caused me concern, and looking at the OFT site, there is a large section there, on this very subject, that seemed to bear that out, if I am understanding correctly? EG. There is a clause that insists (Not advises) that each tenant must take out insurance to cover contents and accidental damage to the property. There is a somewhat hidden clause, by way of a reference to a paragraph in a chapter of the 1988 Housing Act, that, once I'd managed to hunt it down, gives the landlord the right to give 2 months notice to the tenants to quit the property, but there is no such option for the tenants to do the same. There are 2 conflicting access clauses, one that states the tenants are entitled to peace and quiet and to not be disturbed by the landlord, and further down states that the landlord/agents can demand access at any reasonable time of day. There are others that I think are dubious too, but I'm rambling enough as it is, so those are the main ones. It appears to me as if the landlord has added amendments to a standard agreement to suit his needs. None of the other guarantors agreed to sign either, and based on that, all of the tenants decided it was a bad move, and wish to pull out, but they have already signed the agreement and the landlord is trying to force them to fulfill that agreement. I realise that they were foolish to sign the agreement in the first place, and that they should have ensured that they, or someone they could trust, had thoroughly read and understood it first, but are they now stuffed and liable? My thought is that the agreement is unfair and could be challenged if it comes to that, but how many unfair clauses would it take for the contract to be deemed unfair? We have spoken to the landlord to try and come to an amicable agreement, but he is now saying he cannot find anyone who will pay full rent (So much for the queue of potential tenants that forced a quick signature initially!!) and the signed tenants would have to make up the shortfall in the rent from the proposed replacement tenants in order to be released from the agreement. I'm also wondering, if it did go to court, would the students be eligible for legal aid in a civil case, as none of them are employed, but living on their loans. I hope someone can advise, and apologies again for the length of this question. Thanks for reading, those of you who have struggled to the end of this.
  8. Thanks Spiceskull A very clear bit of info. Unfortunately, there is no way she would be that accommodating, or even consider giving up any benefits. She fought tooth and nail to get every last penny she could from me. Also our custody arrangement is on a daily basis, we both have our son 4 days one week and 3 the next, but that is immaterial in my case due to her inherent greed. I think it's just less stressful to accept the bad luck. Thanks all for the information.
  9. Thanks James Thought as much. No, I really don't think she would relinquish it and we never agree on anything. Pretty poor system really (Surprise, surprise), there must be many people in similar position where there is no main carer. Oh well! It's not worth much anyway, not worth the grief of fighting for it. Cheers
  10. Only been in the forum for 2 days and 2nd thread already!! OK, I might just be getting confirmation here, but am I right in thinking only one parent can claim Child Tax Credits? I have 50% custody of my 11 yo son, which was, fortunateley, never contested in the otherwise bitter and twisted divorce that I've just completed a few weeks ago. Ex-wife has been claiming it for that past 2 years that we have been seperated and I let that go as there were far more important things to worry about. It is true 50% custody, so neither parent can clearly show status of having main responsibility. Is my only option (Which I don't want to do) that of contesting her claim? It seems ridiculous that the system seems incable of dealing with this sort of situation, I can't be the only person in the UK with this issue. Any insight?
  11. PS, our part of the world is your part of the world, we're in Birmingham too.
  12. Thanks Sallysas I think the course is over 15 hrs, without placement, so full time student, but due to no income, enrolment officer sort of suggested non commitally, that she maybe might not need to mention the placement, and might just qualify for jsa. I hope the 'foreigner' thing isn't an issue, she has been paying tax and NI since she came here 3 years ago, so she is fully paid up. She hasn't tried neighbourhood office yet, only job centre (Which is right next to it, coincidentally), I'll ask her to pop in there today. Thanks again for advice.
  13. How else could she do it? She wants to advance herself and try and find a worthwhile job, but it's almost impossible to find them without qualifications or experience?
  14. OK, thanks again, sounds like she's pretty well stuffed and has very little in the way of options apart from a possible £30/wk and whatever she can earn in a few days part time.
  15. Thanks again. Re: council tax, am I right in thinking her landlord will declare having full time student as tenant? She is a lodger in landlords home. I don't suppose there is any help with housing benefit or anything?
×
×
  • Create New...