What To Do When A Tenants Guarantor Dies?

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "20/05/2014 - 15:30":

"I suspect a different decision would be made if such a case was heard in a higher Court"

I wouldn't be too sure because, as said, the wording of the Act re. the PI is essentially the same as that re. the requirement to (re-)protect.

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "20/05/2014 - 15:35":

I'm not sure Romain, hence I totally concur with Adam's post and the advice that "Industry Observer" and David d'Orton Gibson have been giving to landlords for several years, i.e. re-serve PI and you can't go wrong, don't re-serve PI and it could cost you a LOT of money.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "20/05/2014 - 15:41":

When I said I wasn't too sure I meant that I think that it is most probable that higher courts would see it in the same way as the County court in the case reported by Nearly Legal, i.e. that PI must be given every single time a new tenancy is created.
Even more important then to follow that advice (which should be a rule, really) and to do give the PI every time even if the scheme does not require any action.

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "20/05/2014 - 15:59":

Choose whatever words you like Romain - Carlsberg is apparently the best lager in the world - "probably".

There's no such thing as nearly pregnant either LOL
.

Hi, I have looked again at my tenancy agreement and it states under a section of the agreement
E. Rent
The tenant agrees to the following:
1. That all tenants will provide the relevant documents, including, but not limited to, an information and referee form and a suitable guarantor.
As she no longer as one, is she not a breach of the tenancy?
Also as the rent is paid direct, she is not in areas. However, the question is still also regarding damages.
what would be best grounds for eviction?

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "20/05/2014 - 16:09":

Not sure what you're point is here, Mark.

You seem of the opinion that higher courts would not see giving PI every time as a requirements. Though you do sensibly agree that the best way is to do it in any case, just to be safe.
From the wording of the Act and anecdotal court decisions, I think that there is an overwhelming probability that all courts would see giving PI as a requirement.
So we agree that PI should be be given every time.

The issue of complying with the initial requirements has been settled by Superstrike (until the law is changed).

Reply to the comment left by "Fred Jones" at "20/05/2014 - 16:23":

Fred, the tenant has complied with that, so there is no breach.

The tenancy being periodic, I would just use the s.21 route to evict (no ground needed).

Reply to the comment left by "Romain " at "20/05/2014 - 16:36":

I agree, no grounds required for eviction under section 21 and as it has already been served Fred is quite within his rights to apply for a possession order from the Courts right now - assuming he can prove the section 21 was previously served as well as new prescribed information of course!
.

Hello all
I am in a similar situation. I told my landlord this week that I have been made redundant and the rent due on the 1st June may be a couple of weeks late. I have put in my claim for housing benefit etc and its just a formality it going through. He informed me that I must get the guarantor to pay, who was my father who dies 5 years ago. So he said it now is my mums responsibility to pay.

Please advise.

PS. I have never been in arrears with my rent, maybe a week max late a handful of times