Can a tenancy be invalid if guarantor changes their mind before being legally bound
<p>I signed a tenancy 3 days ago: I went into the agent's office and they sent me an email with an online form which contained the tenancy agreement. The form asked for a guarantor; I phoned one of my parents, x, and they agreed to be a guarantor, so I put their name and email address on the form and gave my electronic signature. </p>

<p>Before I was handed the keys and moved in (as the tenancy was signed the day before I collected the keys due to me having to pay rent upfront via bank transfer), the agency sent an email to x asking for their details and presumably an e signature (I told x they would require a signature prior to putting x's name down). However, x decided to "leave it floating" and has not given details. We have had an argument today, and hence I don't see x giving details. As it stands, it is my understanding that x is not legally bound to any agreement and thus isn't actually a guarantor assuming that they lie about agreeing to be the guarantor, as in a court of law it would be my word against theirs.</p>

<p>The agency wouldn't give me the keys before I paid the first month's rent. So why would they not require the details and signatue of the guarantor first also before handing over keys? I am now living in the property and have moved in my posessions. Where do I stand legally? Just incase it helps, I reside in England. Also, I don't have any other potential guarantors. The tenancy does not mention anything about a guarantor but it was a mandatory field on the form, which needed to be completed in order for the agreement to be signed, and the agent said it wouldn't be possible for me to rent without one.</p>

<p>It sounds like you already have an agreement. They might like to have a guarantor, but if the agreement already exists then its too late for them to insist.</p>

<p>It seems to me that your providing a guarantor (and on a strict interpretation, x as guarantor) may well be a term of the contract. If so and if you do not provide one they could seek remedies including terminating the contract and charging you for the rent they lose while looking for another tenant.</p>

<p>However, in most jurisdictions, residential tenancy law is highly regulated and common law principles may have been modified: usually to give the tenant more rights.</p>

<p>You moved in. In most countries, this gives you significant rights. It will take the landlord some effort to remove you. In the UK, for example, the landlord would have to take you to court, tell the court how you damaged them, and if the court agrees that the damage is more important then your right to not be homeless then you will be ordered to move out. As long as you pay your rent, there is no damage. I would think that it is practically impossible in the UK to be removed from your home if the only reason is that you didn't supply a guarantor. </p>

<p>A guarantor is doing you a huge favour. Personally, I will never, ever be a guarantor for anybody because it's a recipe for disaster. That potential guarantor in the end didn't sign, but you still moved in. Do you really want to start an argument with that person? Or even an argument in a court of law? I don't know who the guarantor is, parents, sibling, a good friend, your boss. In either case, starting an argument with them will hurt you more than them. </p>

contract-law rental-property residential-lease