Landlord wants our help to convince mortgage lenders he lives here

FraudBuster

From The Fraud Act 2006:

2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).
3 Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060035_en_1

System

Is there a legal duty to disclose though?

silvercar

FraudBuster wrote: »

From The Fraud Act 2006:



http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060035_en_1

So why did you thank DVardysShadow's post?

mynameisdave

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I find it hard to categorise that as fraud.

To me, fraud is where a lender is deceived into handing over money which is not paid back. In the cases we are talking about, there is deceit of the lender, in that the loan is used in a way which the lender was not told about. But I don't think that the lender is necessarily deprived of the money - although I do note that there is a suspicion of arrears.

FRaud need not be wether they get the money back or not, it is how the money or agreement is arranged. If there is a deliberate attempt to concel a fact from one party (the bank) then it would be a fraudulent attempt to get the loan

ukbilly

naijapower wrote: »

My interpretation of this statement is that you have been opening his mail which amounts to an illegality expect of course he had authorised you to do so

No, we've never opened his letters but the return address gives it away, as does the limited text you can read through the envelope window.

We also once had a letter addressed to 'The Occupier' from the people who manage the building because the initial letters we had forwarded on had gone unanswered. It turns out they were ground rent demands and by the time we had letter for the occupier, legal action was being threatened. He must have paid up pretty quickly because we didn't hear anything after that.

Zelie

naijapower wrote: »

You wrong.In the UK it's a criminal offence to open other people's post under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_2#pt1-ch1-pb1-l1g1.
Note it's an offence to open the post, whether the intention is to delay or prevent someone getting the letter and the info therein or to use it for identity fraud.

My initial point was that how did they know the letters were reminders if they didnt open them

Neither of which are the case so your point is irrelevant. That particular act is even more irrelevant to a tenant unless the tenant also happens to be James Bond on a mission.

As for your last question, I can tell when my downstairs neighbours get reminder bills and from which company they originate. Other than a shared hallway and an ability to notice the colour of envelopes there's no magic to it.

DVardysShadow

mynameisdave wrote: »

FRaud need not be wether they get the money back or not, it is how the money or agreement is arranged. If there is a deliberate attempt to concel a fact from one party (the bank) then it would be a fraudulent attempt to get the loan

Look at FraudBuster's quote of the Fraud Act 2006. You are saying:

Fraud = 3(a)

The Fraud Act says

Fraud = 3(a) AND [3(b)(i) OR 3(b)(ii)]

Which is essentially what I said. It is not enough to tell a porky to get a loan, there has to be intent to take money away from the loser

DVardysShadow

silvercar wrote: »

So why did you thank DVardysShadow's post?

Because the Act basically says what I said.

mynameisdave

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Look at FraudBuster's quote of the Fraud Act 2006. You are saying:

Fraud = 3(a)

The Fraud Act says

Fraud = 3(a) AND [3(b)(i) OR 3(b)(ii)

Which is essentially what I said. It is not enough to tell a porky to get a loan, there has to be intent to take money away from the loser

I would think the significantly lower LTV and APR is more than a gain on his part.
Also, be failing to disclose his true itentions for the money the bank is applying a different criteria to asses the loan. This is exposing them to risk they would not suffer if he told the truth.

He is intending to gain for himself. He may not be intending to deprive but he doesnt have to fulfil both criteria

naijapower

ukbilly wrote: »

No, we've never opened his letters but the return address gives it away, as does the limited text you can read through the envelope window.

We also once had a letter addressed to 'The Occupier' from the people who manage the building because the initial letters we had forwarded on had gone unanswered. It turns out they were ground rent demands and by the time we had letter for the occupier, legal action was being threatened. He must have paid up pretty quickly because we didn't hear anything after that.

I only made my comment cos someone said it wasnt illegal to open another person's post. My mission was to establish that it was illegal.