UK Landlord Forum / Life

Hi, I rented my home out whilst living elsewhere to two women through an agency who I then found had 7 children, they then stopped paying rent, 1 woman moved out a 9 months later whose mother was also the guarantor , other woman moved out after 2 years, house was trashed, sec 8s and 21"s had been served. Using a solicitor it is going through court, neither woman has any money, so trying to go after guarantor, at preliminary court I ended up paying for their costs
I know this is a very shortened story, but does a judge ever have sympathy for a landlord, this one has none rent owed is over 25k, damage is over 30k and I'm doing the jobs myself

I have every sympathy for you,and it does seem that the law is generally on the side of the tenant.The harsh reality is that guarantor agreements offer very little protection.It sounds as if those agents did not care about the consequences for you,they just grabbed their commision.Even if the court judged that the guarantor should pay you,you may not get the money paid.She would get a CCJ however,which could affect her in the future.You have to decide whether you are prepared to spend even more money pursuing this,or try to come to terms with it. People like this are predators,and get the many good decent tenants a bad name.If you plan on reletting do not under any circumstances fail to do due diligance yourself,don't leave it to an agent.If someone needs a guarantor they can't afford to rent.

Hi thanks, the guarantor even went to court so her daughter didn't get a ccj and I had to pay the fees for that as well, why is the law so wrong

It generally isn't... "so wrong". Landlords like to claim it's on the side of the Tenant. Tenants likely claim the same. But neither is probably true - the history of the PRS (with ASTs) is one of an almost lawless environment for years (the good times), and the regulations and laws (I suppose) are trying to catch up, the noose is tightening.

It mostly feels like no-one is on your side when you lose. And without knowing anything more about this... it's easy to presume there simply must be some lawful objective reasoning behind what transpired. If it was an easy rent owning / damage caused case with no fault on the other side... why would it go the way it did? I'd like to know more...