It is why this Act should not be taken lightly

Soaring rents, in recent years, had extended the bail system. Then, the mobilization for housing and fight against exclusion (MLLE) Act came into force on 25 March of last year. However this text prohibits lenders private use this precaution as they contracted a guarantee of unpaid rent (GLI) or a universal guarantee of the rental risks (GRL). Exception: when the tenants are students or apprentices. Is it to say that the traditional shield of the owners lived Nothing is less sure.

Of course, an increasing number of donors to ensure against the unpaid rent. In this framework, the GRL should meet their membership. It provides a guarantee to any landlord tenant rent reaches up to 50 of its revenues (in a maximum however of 2.000 euros maximum, charges included). Fact remains that many owners continue to refuse to ensure, essentially because of the cost of the guarantee (of the order of 3 of the amount of annual rent). This is less true when they delegate the management of their property to a property manager. "We use virtually the surety because 99 of our customers adhere to the unpaid rent insurance," said Bruno Cornillon, responsible for the strategy Orpi management. But as soon as the owners themselves manage the recovery of their rental revenue, the reality is opposite. As Anil noted in a study, "one who chooses to manage himself its housing rather than to entrust this task to a professional is also one that is less inclined to use this type of insurance".

At the time, this procedure is still a burden for many candidates tenants, especially from a certain age!

Single or joint surety

Officer of the Quai d'Orsay, Philippe b. made the experience. "Fifty-three years, I thought to be from such a requirement, but I came top when the owner asked me a surety that I categorically refused, because I considered my as adequate safeguards.". The lessor did indeed not insist and rented me housing. "All the tenants not fared not as well. Therefore, who ask to be surety and that implies that endorsed responsibility The person was surety must, of course, be solvent. In General, its income must be three times higher than the amount of the rent. It should also include the scope of the commitment that it takes.

Two categories of surety coexist: the simple and the solidarity. The first assumes that the lessor continue first tenant for the payment of the debt. And if it does not, for example because the assets of the lessee are not, will then turn against the person who made bail. But donors prefer, by far, the surety solidarity, much more protective. Because, in this case, the person who brought surety undertakes in the same way as the tenant. If the latter does not pay his rent, the person guaranteeing will immediately be remains to have to deal with the lessor. The latter is therefore not to pursue the tenant, it will directly appeal to the surety. It is why this Act should not be taken lightly.

Written, this Act must include a number of mandatory particulars. To be valid, it shall specify the duration of the commitment, and the amount of the rent and its revised terms. A clause specifying that the surety was aware of the scope of its commitment must be written in his hand, and the reproduction of article 22-1 of the Act of 6 July 1989.

These draconian conditions problem sometimes, especially when the surety is old. "One may wonder to what extent the elderly person includes the scope of its commitment", recognizes Bruno Cornillon. But, whether it is aware or not, the person was surety will be upon failure of the tenant. It undertakes all its property and income, whether it is wages, pension, movable or immovable property.

The lessor also has some obligations for unpaid. He must inform the surety as early as the first paid and non-rectified due in the month. At worst, "from the date on which it has signed a command to pay to the lessee, the lessor or his representative has fifteen days to serve this command to the surety, says Anil." If these obligations are not met, the guarantor is not required to pay any penalties or interest.

Note that, where appropriate, the guarantor can benefit from payment. The liability of the surety may be set for a definite or indefinite period. In the first case, the guarantor can waive only at the end of the commitment. In the second, nothing prohibits to terminate the engagement at any time, but this information will be effective at the expiration of the current lease (lease initial or renewed). Seen, stand as surety has consequences. It is all the more true that currently the number of unpaid explodes and their amounts are increasingly heavy.