We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Unreasonable Letting Agent Request?
Comments
-
sounds very odd to me DVS
""no actual need to be shown to have caused anyone a loss" - if no loss has occurred where exactly is the fraud ?
as i said earlier in this thread, i think not getting consent to let is a civil breach of contract matter - and i have heard of no cases of a Lender taking a mortgagee to court for this.. they just up the interest rate....0 -
#""Letting a property without permission to let is obtaining money by false pretences contrary to S2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Ask agent whether he is aware that he is aiding and abetting this? ""
it could be obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. If the person renting is deceived into believing, wrongly, that there is consent to let when there is not, and that deceit is a material consideration in his paying the rent, that could well amount to an offence....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
sounds very odd to me DVS
""no actual need to be shown to have caused anyone a loss" - if no loss has occurred where exactly is the fraud ?
as i said earlier in this thread, i think not getting consent to let is a civil breach of contract matter - and i have heard of no cases of a Lender taking a mortgagee to court for this.. they just up the interest rate....
There doesn't need to be a loss.
One example of such deception I deal with frequently is where the obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception is the result of a person telling an employer he is entitled to work in the UK, when he is not. He then obtains the wages by deception if he gets the job, even though he does the work....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
I wouldn't show a letting agent 3 months of my bank statements, it is absolutely none of his business whether I shop at Tesco / Waitrose / Fortnum & Masons....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0
-
DVardysShadow wrote: »It is new. Well newish. New Labour spread the net so wide on Fraud that it was made a strict liability offence [I think], based on telling a porky with no actual need to be shown to have caused anyone a loss.
No, it's not strict liability. There has to be mens rea....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
DVardysShadow wrote: »It is new. Well newish. New Labour spread the net so wide on Fraud that it was made a strict liability offence [I think], based on telling a porky with no actual need to be shown to have caused anyone a loss.
the porky has to at least be linked to the intention to cause someone a loss or obtain an advantage though.0 -
NDgirl - what is mens rea pls ?0
-
It is the mental element of a criminal offence. Every offence has two elements, the actus reus (actually doing whatever it is) and the mens rea, which varies from offence to offence.
Some offences are strict liability, such as drink-driving. The prosecution doesn't have to show that you intended to drive knowing you were over the limit, or knowing you might be. So you are guilty of drink-driving if someone spikes your drink, and you have no way of knowing it.
In the case of murder, you have to kill someone, and intend to kill them or cause serious injury (grevious bodily harm) which is the actus reus. If you don't have the mens rea, it's manslaughter. So if you smack someone round the face, and he falls over, hits his head and dies, that's manslaughter rather than murder.
In the case of the various deception offences, you have to know that you are deceiving someone. It's not strict liability. So if you think (say, because of a forged letter) that the LL has consent to let when he does not, then you are not committing an offence if you tell someone else that, because you are not intending to deceive anyone....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards