Updating post from Reddit.
What's the point in them because of you say " the tenant could lose their job or not pay" so can the guarantor. Whatever you think about the tenant can happen to the tenant
Guarantor should have assets. Such as a UK based property. Also assets such as vehicles and items in their home.
That’s not completely right, guarantors guarantee with assets. Also the likeliness of an individual going bankrupt is higher than two.
Two bad events is less likely to occur that one.
Guarantors are usually homeowners. So they will pay out if the tenant dont pay because they do not want a charge on their assets via a CCJ.
What if they don't own their home or/and assets
A guarantor can't just say they will cover the shortfall should a tenant default on their agreed payments. The guarantor needs to prove they have assets/investments/funds to cover any shortfall, should the Tennant default on their agreement.
Odds of 2 people losing their jobs and being unable to pay at the same time is lower than 1 person losing their job.
If one of those people also has significant assets, that reduces the risk of the outcome of the above scenario significantly.
I only consider a guarantor to be acceptable if they have UK assets, e.g. a house.
Guarantor is often requested when the tenant has issues. I.e. CCJ, low affordability, etc.
The guarantor must pass the tests that ghe tenant cannot. So has assets or can afford