Former Tenant Obtained Credit In My Late Mothers Name

maximumme

I recently got rid of a troublesome tenant who rented my late Mothers former home. After she left, I found out she had used my late Mothers name to and purchase goods from a mail order catalogue. She was arrested, and let off with a caution (I know, I know!). Since then, I have found out she has opened a further 3 mail order accounts in my mothers name, although on these 3 occasions she was unsuccessful in obtaining goods. I have reported this to the police who say as she did not manage to obtain any goods, they "THINK" she hasn't committed a crime. They are currently looking into it. I find it hard to believe that this is not a crime. Does anyone know what the actual law is in this case?

PasturesNew

I'd have thought this would cover it:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fraud

Any act of deception carried out for the purpose of unfair, undeserved and/or unlawful gain, either valuable financially or comprising a legal right.
The assumption of a false identity to such deceptive end
One who performs any such trick.

But then this says it doesn't actually exist:
http://www.internalaudit.bham.ac.uk/audit/fraud.shtml

Theft Acts of 1968 and 1978 are what you're after.

maximumme

Also, to avoid getting her gas cut off, half way through the tenancy ( 9 months), she informed the gas board she had moved, and that another tenant had moved in, and she gave a false name in order to obtain gas for the rest of the tenancy. She has left owing over £2,000 in gas and electricity bills. The police say it is a civil matter!

AND......I have just received a letter from her solicitor wanting to know why I have not returned her bond........:rotfl:

lincroft1710

Judging by the fact she only got a caution and these other 3 frauds were committed prior to the caution, it is doubtful that even if charged ex tenant would receive any realistic punishment such as fine/prison/community service.

At least the police are aware.

clutton_2

if she moved in after April 2008 you should have put her bond into a deposit protection scheme - did you ?

lincroft1710

It will be up to utilities supplier to chase her for non payment of G & E. I wonder if she pays her solicitor?

maximumme

She actually moved in March 2008 and paid everything through a property agent. I doubt she will have to pay her solicitor, she is an unmarried mother of four on benefits.

m_13

The Fraud Act 2006 took away many of the other offences that used to be on the statute book.

However, a person who makes a false representation to attempt to make a gain (and case law says it's possible to attempt the impossible) can be charged with Fraud by False Representation, Section 2 of The Fraud Act 2006. It makes no difference whether she managed to buy something, she falsely represented herself as your late mother.

I'd also be interested in what she used to open the accounts. If she provided any form of false identity document then that is a offence under the Identity Cards Act 2006. Subsection (5) makes it

an offence for a person to have in his possession, without reasonable excuse, a false identity document or a genuine document that has been improperly obtained or relates to someone else, or equipment used for making false identity documents. Unless there is a reasonable excuse, these offences apply irrespective of any intent to use the documents or equipment. Subsection (7) prescribes a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment, a fine or both.

So if this person has managed to get hold of a genuine document in your mother's name (such as a bill) or a false document in your mother's name then that too is an offence irrespective of whether she has used it.

PM me if you'd like help with this

m_13

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Judging by the fact she only got a caution and these other 3 frauds were committed prior to the caution, it is doubtful that even if charged ex tenant would receive any realistic punishment such as fine/prison/community service
At least the police are aware.

Not necessarily true. From the cautioning guidelines:

Before the caution is administered the offender must be reminded and understand:

• that acceptance is an admission of guilt;
• that if new evidence comes to light suggesting that the offence(s) committed are more serious, then legal action may still follow.

So, if a person is cautioned on the basis that it was a one-off occurence but then was found to be a pattern of behaviour then having received a caution does not mean that legal action cannot take place and include the offence for which they were cautioned.

The sentencing guidelines for Fraud by False Representation contrary to The Fraud Act 2006 specifically mentions:

Obtaining credit through fraud - Obtaining credit through fraud includes the fraudulent obtaining of mortgages, loans, interest free credit, in-store credit, goods or services on a ‘buy now pay later’ basis, car finance, credit cards, store cards, and bank accounts (with overdrafts).

It also says that using another person's identity is an 'aggravating factor':

26. Use of another person’s identity may increase the harm caused; this may vary depending on the origins of the stolen identity:
using the identity of a living person is likely to cause emotional distress for that individual who will also have the practical and potentially stressful problem of untangling the financial consequences of the fraud;
using the identity of a deceased person is likely to indicate a higher degree of planning (as it can be an attempt to make the fraud more difficult to uncover) and is likely to cause considerable distress to the relatives of the deceased, especially if that person has only recently died.

27. Using the identity of another person is an aggravating factor; the extent to which it aggravates an offence will be based on the degree of planning and the impact that the offence has had on the living victim or the relatives of the deceased.
Accordingly, in itself, whether the identity belongs to a living or deceased person should be neutral for this purpose.

Use of another person’s identity is an aggravating factor (see paragraphs 26-27 above). Whilst this factor may be present in any fraud, it is a feature of nearly all payment card and bank account frauds. Courts should therefore depart from the suggested starting points in all cases of payment card and bank account fraud (and any other case in which it arises) to reflect the presence of this aggravating factor.

For frauds where credit is obtained or attempted to be obtained between £2,500 and £5,000 and the action was fradulent from the outset and multiple frauds were comitted the sentencing guidelines say:

Starting point: Community order (HIGH)
Range: Community order (LOW) - 6 weeks custody

Jowo_2

maximumme wrote: »

She actually moved in March 2008 and paid everything through a property agent.

Clutton has got his dates wrong - the tenancy deposit schemes were in force from April 2007.

So was it protected and why hasn't it been returned? This is important because if the property is in England and Wales, the landlord can be ordered by the court to pay x3 the sum of the deposit as compensation to the tenant for not protecting it.

If you feel the Police are being apathetic, look into the feasibility of escalating this through their complaints process or go speak to your local councillor or MP.

maximumme

The bond was held by the DPS.

Before the tenant moved in, we spent over £10,000 refurbishing the property, which included over £2,000 on replastering and painting every wall inside the house.

The tenancy agreement states that the tenant "Cannot carry out any re-decoration of the Premises or any part thereof without prior written consent of the landlord".
Since moving in, she has redecorated every room to a very poor standard, including wallpapering 2 of the downstairs rooms. I did not give any permission for her to carry out this work. It has to be said that the general decor of the house is now a total mess.

It has been estimated that it will cost £1257.00 to have the whole of the house re-painted to a professional standard.

Externally, eleven natural brick windowsills and lintels have been painted with black gloss paint. Again I did not give any permission for her to carry out this work.
It has been estimated, to remove the black gloss paint from the brickwork, it will cost £218.47.

The tenancy agreement states that the tenant "cannot keep or permit to be kept on the Premises, any animal, fish, reptile or bird, without prior written consent of the landlord".
She built a dog kennel and pen, in the rear garden, approx 15 feet x 8 feet in size, keeping a dog, a ferret and on occasions, was known to have kept a horse, also in the rear garden.

The 2 dustbins outside had to be cleaned out, after one contained a large amount of dog excrement, and the other contained cooking oil. It took us around 2 hours to clean out both bins.

Removed internal doors, then rehung them using wrong screws, resulting in the bottom hinge coming off, and splitting the bottom of the door.
Damage to kitchen drawers by replacing existing screws with longer ones, resulting in damage to the front of the drawer.
Damaging new UPVC door by screwing door numbers onto the front resulting in screws going right through the door to the inside. (white numbers onto a white door :huh:)
She left the property 4 weeks before her tenancy agreement ended, and now owes me rent. She failed to inform British Gas/Electricity about her move. I also have proof that she has not paid her gas bill since September 2008.
Around this time she informed British Gas that she no longer lived at the property, and informed them that a new tenant had moved in, and she gave them a false name in order to avoid having the gas supply cut off. She left the property owing approx £1800 in unpaid Gas/Electricity bills.
She has opened 4 mail order catalogue accounts (that we know about) in my late mothers name causing great anger and distress to my entire family.

Now, who thinks I should refund her £400 bond?