Misrepresentation Act

[Deleted User]

Leo2020 wrote: »

This would be better moved to the house buying and rent section.

I'm not even certain that would be a suitable;e place for it..

Leo2020

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I'm not even certain that would be a suitable;e place for it..

Well it seems more suitable than this section.

[Deleted User]

Leo2020 wrote: »

Well it seems more suitable than this section.

Well it might get more informed responses there, but many regulars cross-post in many of the forums anyway.

I've said from the outset that the main stumbling block will be proving verbal reassurances were given by the Developers.I agree with you that it was likely a salesman trying to close a sale.
I don't think any "recordings" would be permissible, as they would have to be taken covertly.

The OP also doesn't say how he knows such checks were not made and I'm also sure that he is on somewhat shaky ground if he intends to disclose what he has discovered about his neighbours apparently "criminal" history. The offences may well be "spent, " for example, and wouldn't show on any basic checks that could have been made.

pinkshoes

I wish you luck with this.

I lived in a similar property (a friend owned it - was very gratefuly it wasn't me that owned it - sorry!!!) and despite most the neighbours being lovely, it was a couple of the social housing tenants that ruined the whole street. Bikes stolen, cars broken into just to steal a rubbish car stereo worth probably £10, their kids ripped the branches of the trees, shouting and swearing by both parents and kids, people turning up at all hours and screaming outside their door, music blaring from cars etc...

SO DIFFICULT to get a HA tenant kicked out!!! It didn't seem to matter how many of us complained.

(As a comparison, a private problematic tenant in the block where I then bought a flat did not get their contract renewed after 6 months... The LLs who rented their flats out did not want tenants that annoyed other owners!)

Leo2020

In regards to covert recordings. In civil cases a judge may allow it as evidence if he/she thinks it is relevant to the case. However I suspect the OP has no evidence and I think its highly unlikely they will be able to win any sort of compensation.

Also at least with HA tenants it is possible to get them kicked out although it might be a long process. If you have a problem neighbour proceowns their own home then you really are stuck with the problem unless you move.

kingfisherblue

I have a question. The SH tenants must have a job - but what happens if they are made redundant or otherwise lose their job? Circumstances change.

Also, would sales staff actually know if criminal checks could be undertaken? In employment, a DBS check can only be carried out if it is valid in terms of the job. I've no idea if DBS checks can be carried out if someone applies for a tenancy. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can clarify?

DomRavioli

kingfisherblue wrote: »

I have a question. The SH tenants must have a job - but what happens if they are made redundant or otherwise lose their job? Circumstances change.

Also, would sales staff actually know if criminal checks could be undertaken? In employment, a DBS check can only be carried out if it is valid in terms of the job. I've no idea if DBS checks can be carried out if someone applies for a tenancy. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can clarify?

Very very unlikely that any form of DBS check has been carried out on tenants.

There's plenty of checks done, but this isn't one of them that I know of (I've temped in 9 RSLs and not even the staff were CRB checked)

kingfisherblue

DomRavioli wrote: »

Very very unlikely that any form of DBS check has been carried out on tenants.

There's plenty of checks done, but this isn't one of them that I know of (I've temped in 9 RSLs and not even the staff were CRB checked)

Thanks. That's what I thought, yet the OP talks about checks for criminal convictions (which presumably would be a DBS check). I didn't think applying for a tenancy would be a reason to be checked, hence my question.

[Deleted User]

kingfisherblue wrote: »

Thanks. That's what I thought, yet the OP talks about checks for criminal convictions (which presumably would be a DBS check). I didn't think applying for a tenancy would be a reason to be checked, hence my question.

Yes, the whole point is that the OP was allegedly told that the tenants would all be "vetted". Clearly, he thought they would have DBS (or similar) checks and his whole case is that he's now found out that the checks he alleges were verbally promised have not been performed.

As you say, the tenants could lose their jobs through redundancy etc and certainly wouldn't be evicted on that basis alone.

kingfisherblue

And of course, those who buy their homes rather than rent would never have a criminal record would they?!