Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • @dx100uk no, haven’t received any correspondence as of yet. Still waiting on a court date but seems to be taking forever. Have noticed an increase in unhappy customers on here
  • 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
      • 160 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

Letting Agent & Landlord won't accept me rescinding as a Guarantor

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 146 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

I signed to be a guarantor for a friend when she rented a property nearly 5 years ago. The tenancy was a 12 month AST. 

Earlier this year I decided it was time to rescind my guarantorship and so both myself and the Tenant notified the Letting Agent and all other relevant parties to remove my name from that arrangement and relieve me of that obligation. The tenant by the way has never defaulted on her rent to this day, throughout the entire tenancy.

It has been over 6 months since this change request was initiated, but what has since transpired has been a case of the Letting Agent and Landlord deliberately doing everything to frustrate me and responding with countless misleading email responses that they're still awaiting a response from such and such agent, landlord, some individual, etc, etc.

After months of putting up with their games, I recently issued them with a deadline and ultimatum that if they failed to implement the change requested jointly by the Tenant and myself by close of business Friday, 06 Oct 2023, I would report the matter to the appropriate authorities. They eventually came back to advise that the Landlord has advised that he'd like the Guarantorship arrangements to remain in place.

As far as the tenancy is concerned, here are some key details to describe the current status.

  • The rent was increased on a new tenancy agreement issued about a couple of years ago, without any notice to me.
  • The tenancy lapsed into a periodic tenancy more than a year ago, as no new tenancy agreement was issued to the tenant at the end of the previous term.

I therefore have a few questions for which I hope some of our esteemed and knowledgeable forum members here can assist with. I'd like to know the following:

  1. Where or how would be the best route for me to seek redress to my grievance?
  2. Would it be valid to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office for continued misuse of my personal data by the Letting Agents/Landlord, etc?
  3. I am led to believe that changes to the original tenancy, for example, the rent increase of which I was not notified, renders the original guarantorship to now become invalid. Is this indeed the case?
  4. I am led to believe that when a tenancy lapses into a periodic tenancy, a Guarantor's obligation can/should cease. Is this the case?
  5. Can a guarantorship arrangement continue in perpetuity?
  6. Can a Landlord and/or Letting Agent impose guarantor obligations on a person, even where the Guarantor and Tenant, two main principal parties, have asked for that arrangement to be terminated?

Some Useful Articles On This Subject Matter
Citizens Advice
Money Forums

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please upload the guarantee document that you signed 5 years ago. Cover up all information that would identify you, your friend or the property.

The starting point for issues about guaranteeship is what the deed of guarantee says.

If you succeed in terminating your guarantee is there a risk the landlord will issue a s21 notice to evict your friend? Although that would seem a remarkably short-sighted thing to do when they have a tenant who apparently has been a good tenant for years, always paid rent on time, presumably has looked after the property and complies with all terms of the tenancy. Is your tenant finacially  'stable', in employment and able to afford the rent in the future?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @Ethel Street very grateful for your response.

I will indeed try and upload the deed as best as I can, although as it's a PDF file and therefore not easily editable, I'll simply use my Windows snipping tool to snip and share the relevant section. 

Regarding your other queries, perhaps my feedback will be as follows:

1. If I remember correctly, S21s were recently abolished and so that eviction route is shut anyway. The tenant though has revealed that the Landlord served her notice to vacate the property some time ago, as he was seeking to sell the property.

2. The tenant is in active employment within the health service, extremely hard-working, and has been actively progressing her career as a specialist health professional, so she frankly ticks all the usual boxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ethel Street said:

Or use my low-tech workaround: print out a copy, cover up bits I want to hide with a black felt tip marker, then recopy and upload that 😉 (I'm not very techie!)

Lol..........I actually forgot I had access to some tools that could allow me to edit the file. I've cropped out all personal data and have attached it below. Thanks




Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, hitman126 said:

The tenant though has revealed that the Landlord served her notice to vacate the property some time ago, as he was seeking to sell the property.

Legislation to ban s21 is going through parliament but AFAIK is some way from actually getting into law so at the moment I think a LL could still use it. 

But your comment "The tenant though has revealed that the Landlord served her notice to vacate the property some time ago, as he was seeking to sell the property." sounds like she has already been served with a s21 notice. Is that correct? How has she responded to this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Ethel Street said:

Legislation to ban s21 is going through parliament but AFAIK is some way from actually getting into law so at the moment I think a LL could still use it. 

But your comment "The tenant though has revealed that the Landlord served her notice to vacate the property some time ago, as he was seeking to sell the property." sounds like she has already been served with a s21 notice. Is that correct? How has she responded to this?

So feedback received is that, yes the tenant was served with a S21 notice back in approximately February of this year, with the landlord demanding that the family move out by July. This was then followed by another letter from the landlord's solicitors, asking them to vacate the property by middle of this month. Tenant says she's not responded yet to this second notice from the solicitors.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, that probably explains why LL doesn't want to release you from the guarantee. LL probably thinks that a tenant under a s21 notice might stop paying rent before they move out. 

Is tenant taking advice from housing charities or legal advice on her options? It's not something I know a lot about but there's excellent guidance on the Shelter website.

Section 21 eviction - Shelter England

Once she actually leaves your guarantee terminates and the issue is resolved per para 7 of the Guarantor Agreement.


Link to post
Share on other sites

So tenant told me a couple of days ago she's seeking advice through the Citizens Advice Bureau regarding her eviction. And you are right, the LL has probably taken that defiant stance on my guarantorship, based on the knowledge that the tenant is expected to leave the property imminently.

I myself wasn't aware of the full details and specific timelines regarding her S21 Notice until our conversation a couple of days ago and indeed a few minutes ago. It was purely coincidental that I requested to be taken off as a guarantor, just around the time when she was also being evicted.

In all honesty, it's not at all a big deal for me whether or not I remain her guarantor as I fully trust her and her family, but it's just that when earlier this year I received another annual renewal notification via email from a company called Zero Deposit, relating to her tenancy and my guarantorship, I just felt it was about time I broke away from any such obligation and hence my subsequent action. I'd frankly lost complete track of the fact I was her guarantor until that renewal notification came in. It's just a useful lesson learned for the future, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm that S21 is very much still active and in place and I think its potential ending might not be as good for tenants as many think as a number will end up with at fault terminations instead.  (but that's another issue).  As S21 is a no fault eviction it may be that the landlord is looking to do something else with the property e.g. sell it and is no reflection on the tenant or their conduct.

The determination as to whether you remain as a guarantor until the landlord ends it will depend on the terms of what you originally signed.  The form I use limits it to the tenancy period and rather than issue an extension I prefer to issue a new agreement but there are examples where extensions can include for the guarantee to be extended and there is nothing (or little) that can be done about it.

Be careful with Citizens Advice as they may not be specialist in Tenancy Law  


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...