My tenant did not leave a forwarding address, I have the guarantors address. The guarantor is a family member.
Can I pursue him in a small claims court for the damaged caused. I am not trusting DPS to reach the right decision when it is clearly a case of breach of contract in the most part.
I can pay for an address search for the tenants but that is yet another expense added to the claim which could result in me not fully reimbursed. They breached the contract yet again by not leaving a forwarding address.
You can certainly persue them but it will be shocking if they pay. People don’t understand the law and put too much stock by having a guarantor. Imagine the number of things you have to prove if you take this to court!
A friend of mine was in this position a few years ago. The guarantor tried every trick in the book to avoid his responsibility and the stress of numerous court appearances nearly killed this poor woman although he was made accountable in the end.
But it is surely not a matter of being held to account. First, you will never succeed in getting a guarantor to pay for damages. Second, no court is going to make someone pay thousands. At best, after all the heartache, they may be ordered to pay peanuts by installments. This is what happens when people default on debt, even huge debt. A lof of people have no understanding of how little the legal system helps them in most non-criminal cases. Check if the prospective tenant has the money, check if they have previous tenancy problems and spend time with them. If a nurse with 2 kids and 10 years experience wants to move in, I will rent it to them. I don’t care about a guarantor unless I am using it to get insurance.
The guarantor are home owners who work full time. I can also employ bailiffs and get a CCJ issued against them if they don’t pay.
The tenants did not leave a forwarding address so I need to know whether I should employ a company to trace them or if it’s acceptable to go direct to the guarantor as this is the only address I have. They breached their contract by not leaving their next address.
Their deposit money is registered with a deposit scheme and it’s waiting for a court order before being released, this covers more than half the damage.
Thanks for answering, from research they don’t let w guarantor shirk their responsibilities and tend to always go in the landlords favour. I’ve had positive feedback.
It’s a legally binding contract so it should be upheld.
It will be upheld almost certainly but you are not in it for the judgement. If someone leaves without paying, you can get a CCJ but you may not get paid much. This happens all the time. People default, get a CCJ and pay ÂŁ2 a month.
.
I have been lucky enough not to have been in the situation before.
What is wrong with DPS arbitration?
The guarantor is there to cover any costs. A CCJ against them will help other landlords avoid being caught out by the same people again.
Although I always like to check the tenant has paid regularly and not defaulted on rent and dont care too much about CCJ history if there is a good reason
The tenants have made up stories with no evidence but I just don’t trust DPS to see through their lies, but I know a small claims court will insist on evidence and deal with the facts whilst upholding the contract signed.
Hi Tracy, the DPS absolutely insist on evidence, they recently ran a series of webinars on how to apply for deposit payments for damage which were very clear fair and good. You could always discuss the situation with them. Cheaper than the small claims court.
What example is your reply based on. I want to hear other people’s experiences.
I’m not going for 1000’s of pounds. The deposit scheme holds two thirds of the money. It’s not necessarily about the money it’s about installing the need to respect a contract otherwise what is the point
If someone has a CCJ, imagine what someone has had to do to get them awarded with one and them to then not pay it, ignore at your peril,there are lots of dodgy people out there
“dont care too much about a CCJ” ?. You deserve to get your fingers burnt. How can aCCJ have a good reason . Some poor sod has lost money and not likely been paid
There aren’t lots of dodgy people out there actually. Most people are decent and very unlikely to not pay. It does happen but have some perspective. If someone has been paying rent unfailingly for years, it is churlish and unfair to say they’re dodgy because of one CCJ. You are free not to rent to them, of course, but bad things happen to good people in life.
MY narrow mindedness has made me a lot of money over the years as a builder and a landlord … I have never had a CCJ against me and if anyone has a ccj they will not get one of my places. I referenced a guy who owed 8000 on a ccj yet earned 45000 no attempt to pay it off . Did not get my place . !! Sounds to me as if those who advocate considering a CCJ tenant have experience a CCJ themselves
You are free not ro rent, of course. You sound unduly angry at people who make choices you don’t like and and whose circumstances you don’t understand. I actually think it should be illegal for renters to ask for credit history and should be restricted to checking for ability to pay and history of tenancy only. I don’t see why we should be allowed to make people homeless. Money isn’t everything and remember that life is too short.
Is this a joke?
I think that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Some CCJ’s are for unpaid rent and Landlord’s that have been burnt with significant loss.
You might as well not do any checks and when you don’t get any rent just give your sentiment to the mortgage company or the courts when you can’t afford to keep up with maintenance or regulations.
I believe you when you say that was the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard. The reason is becuase you live in your own bubble where owning a house is a human right to you but you don’t realise the reason why we own houses. Buy to rent is the main reason a huge number of productive and indispensable member of society live hand to mouth. The nurse who has to live in a room until she is 40 because we protect people who happened to own 10 houses seems a law of nature to you but a sane society would never allow it. The least we can do is discourage buy to let at such an insane rate. The idea that one group of lucky people should exclude others from a roof over their heads would sound nuts if you were to allow yourself to think about it objectively.
