The OP could have required the lodger to apply for his own CRB check, then show it to the OP. I’d have thought that is legal if you are sharing your home with a stranger, but I have no knowledge.
But, the OP did not do that. The OP's employer applied for a CRB check on the lodger, then gave that to the OP. Even though that was done with the lodger’s consent, that strikes me as dodgy.
However, none of that seems to be in the lodger's claim letter, so the OP doesn’t have to deal with it.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
Lodger lied during application, outcome on page 29...!
Options
Comments
-
So based on your logic, he's entitled to keep his criminal record private for un-spent convictions and by extension he could then also choose to withhold anything else he wanted to do so as well, because I should respect his privacy and not hold his past against him.CKhalvashi said:
It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.Andthen07 said:
Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
As I've stated, a 6 month contract was signed, it's highly possible that as a result of illegal searches being made on the lodget that contract was broken under pressure.
There may therefore be a claim, however taking this thread at face value and piecing together the rest, I'd go with there being a breach under pressure on your part.
Your lodger would have a reasonable right to privacy, which you have not respected, especially as I can see there have been no threats towards you and no expectation of such.
I am therefore still of the opinion that something between £0 and 5 months rent may be owed as a result of what's been implied here.
That would be fine had he not intentionally lied. See the issue?
The fact the credit and DBS check was going to be carried out wasn't hidden or done in secret. He even had the option on the DBS check to actually withhold sharing the result as I know it's asked, it also has a declaration on who it's shared with and they choose some, one, all or none. He consented to all, and my argument is he knew at that point I was going to find out despite declaring earlier he had no un-spent convictions.
Really don't think he's got a case, and I'm now determined to just tell him to take it to court. His actions voided the contract through dishonesty and being opportunistic.I've sold my signature spot as an NFT.2 -
No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
It is my employer who requires anyone living at the address to undergo a standard DBS check. I'm not going to go into why, but it's not illegal in the slightest.CKhalvashi said:
You would not have the right to effectively CRB check someone for the purpose of a tenancy agreement. These can only be used in certain circumstances. I cannot (and would not want to) effectively check all of my staff unless either a legal requirement states this must be done (which is applicable for some staff) or doing so would be both legal and make sense.themastergoose said:
Are you serious? The lodger WAS checked for everything bar background checking, and it clearly states that if anything differs from his disclosure when the report finally comes back he MAY have the agreement terminated.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
The lodger wasn't pressured to leave. He lied, end of. I served notice because of it, and he chose to leave early and also collected his deposit back and un-used days he'd paid for.
The checks were not illegal neither. I'm amused everyone keeps on saying that they were.
I have included the link below for companies, but if not, can you show in law where this would be necessary or proportionate for the (now broken) contract you hold with your lodger?
https://www.gov.uk/find-out-dbs-check
In short, yes, I am serious unless you have been threatened (which still wouldn't require this check, it would require a police call) or there is something regulated going on within the property that you have not mentioned in this thread.
As a court claim would take 1.5 days of salary to earn, I am still sure the money to you would have been forthcoming and therefore there is no issue with this, and withholding any threats, am sure there was no need for you to invade the privacy of your lodger beyond the fact there was not a danger to you and the rent could be paid.I've sold my signature spot as an NFT.3 -
It depends on the level/type of the check - the basic disclosure check can indeed be requested.CKhalvashi said:
You would not have the right to effectively CRB check someone for the purpose of a tenancy agreement. These can only be used in certain circumstances. I cannot (and would not want to) effectively check all of my staff unless either a legal requirement states this must be done (which is applicable for some staff) or doing so would be both legal and make sense.themastergoose said:
Are you serious? The lodger WAS checked for everything bar background checking, and it clearly states that if anything differs from his disclosure when the report finally comes back he MAY have the agreement terminated.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
The lodger wasn't pressured to leave. He lied, end of. I served notice because of it, and he chose to leave early and also collected his deposit back and un-used days he'd paid for.
The checks were not illegal neither. I'm amused everyone keeps on saying that they were.
But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,Had the whole of their cash in his care.
Lewis Carroll2 -
Ignore Lionel Hutz.themastergoose said:
It is my employer who requires anyone living at the address to undergo a standard DBS check. I'm not going to go into why, but it's not illegal in the slightest.CKhalvashi said:
You would not have the right to effectively CRB check someone for the purpose of a tenancy agreement. These can only be used in certain circumstances. I cannot (and would not want to) effectively check all of my staff unless either a legal requirement states this must be done (which is applicable for some staff) or doing so would be both legal and make sense.themastergoose said:
Are you serious? The lodger WAS checked for everything bar background checking, and it clearly states that if anything differs from his disclosure when the report finally comes back he MAY have the agreement terminated.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
The lodger wasn't pressured to leave. He lied, end of. I served notice because of it, and he chose to leave early and also collected his deposit back and un-used days he'd paid for.
The checks were not illegal neither. I'm amused everyone keeps on saying that they were.
I have included the link below for companies, but if not, can you show in law where this would be necessary or proportionate for the (now broken) contract you hold with your lodger?
https://www.gov.uk/find-out-dbs-check
In short, yes, I am serious unless you have been threatened (which still wouldn't require this check, it would require a police call) or there is something regulated going on within the property that you have not mentioned in this thread.
As a court claim would take 1.5 days of salary to earn, I am still sure the money to you would have been forthcoming and therefore there is no issue with this, and withholding any threats, am sure there was no need for you to invade the privacy of your lodger beyond the fact there was not a danger to you and the rent could be paid.3 -
Yes, you can ask but cannot specifically do the checks.themastergoose said:
So based on your logic, he's entitled to keep his criminal record private for un-spent convictions and by extension he could then also choose to withhold anything else he wanted to do so as well, because I should respect his privacy and not hold his past against him.CKhalvashi said:
It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.Andthen07 said:
Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
As I've stated, a 6 month contract was signed, it's highly possible that as a result of illegal searches being made on the lodget that contract was broken under pressure.
There may therefore be a claim, however taking this thread at face value and piecing together the rest, I'd go with there being a breach under pressure on your part.
Your lodger would have a reasonable right to privacy, which you have not respected, especially as I can see there have been no threats towards you and no expectation of such.
I am therefore still of the opinion that something between £0 and 5 months rent may be owed as a result of what's been implied here.
That would be fine had he not intentionally lied. See the issue?
The fact the credit and DBS check was going to be carried out wasn't hidden or done in secret. He even had the option on the DBS check to actually withhold sharing the result as I know it's asked, it also has a declaration on who it's shared with and they choose some, one, all or none. He consented to all, and my argument is he knew at that point I was going to find out despite declaring earlier he had no un-spent convictions.
Really don't think he's got a case, and I'm now determined to just tell him to take it to court. His actions voided the contract through dishonesty and being opportunistic.
https://unlock.org.uk/advice/private-rented-housing/
I don't have any criminal convictions and don't rent, so can't confirm from experience, but your actions are not a standard practice I've seen when renting a property or room. A credit check for this purpose would generally be ok however.
Checks on criminal records can only be completed in certain circumstances, and I don't believe (but as you are protesting I'm wrong have asked a property professional who will probably get back to me tomorrow) that lettings is one of these exceptions.
In any event, a 6 month contract was signed and the lodger moved in before any concerns were raised via your further checks, with no evidence that the history would be aimed at you. Even if these were legal (which I believe it wasn't unless something else regulated was going on within the property), this should have been done before move in (or even more preferably via a separate contract before the license agreement was signed) to keep you in the clear.
There would be some circumstances where that would be reasonable and many where it wouldn't. The one that immediately springs to mind would be that you're a foster carer or police officer, however even in the latter case I'm not sure that would be automatically fair on your lodger. I don't think a standard check would be reasonable in any event (with some things I can immediately think of going against this), but in some circumstances a basic check may be.themastergoose said:
It is my employer who requires anyone living at the address to undergo a standard DBS check. I'm not going to go into why, but it's not illegal in the slightest.CKhalvashi said:
You would not have the right to effectively CRB check someone for the purpose of a tenancy agreement. These can only be used in certain circumstances. I cannot (and would not want to) effectively check all of my staff unless either a legal requirement states this must be done (which is applicable for some staff) or doing so would be both legal and make sense.themastergoose said:
Are you serious? The lodger WAS checked for everything bar background checking, and it clearly states that if anything differs from his disclosure when the report finally comes back he MAY have the agreement terminated.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
The lodger wasn't pressured to leave. He lied, end of. I served notice because of it, and he chose to leave early and also collected his deposit back and un-used days he'd paid for.
The checks were not illegal neither. I'm amused everyone keeps on saying that they were.
I have included the link below for companies, but if not, can you show in law where this would be necessary or proportionate for the (now broken) contract you hold with your lodger?
https://www.gov.uk/find-out-dbs-check
In short, yes, I am serious unless you have been threatened (which still wouldn't require this check, it would require a police call) or there is something regulated going on within the property that you have not mentioned in this thread.
As a court claim would take 1.5 days of salary to earn, I am still sure the money to you would have been forthcoming and therefore there is no issue with this, and withholding any threats, am sure there was no need for you to invade the privacy of your lodger beyond the fact there was not a danger to you and the rent could be paid.
If it's found to not be reasonable, you may have a claim against your employer.
Once again, in many years dealing with the rental market (as just about everything but a tenant or agent), I have never seen this term included.
If you are a foster carer, speak to your social worker. If you're a police officer, speak to your fed rep. If you're neither, seek legal advice is going to be where I'll leave this for you.💙💛 💔-1 -
The bloke was a lodger dude, one step up from Airbnb.CKhalvashi said:
Yes, you can ask but cannot specifically do the checks.themastergoose said:
So based on your logic, he's entitled to keep his criminal record private for un-spent convictions and by extension he could then also choose to withhold anything else he wanted to do so as well, because I should respect his privacy and not hold his past against him.CKhalvashi said:
It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.Andthen07 said:
Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
As I've stated, a 6 month contract was signed, it's highly possible that as a result of illegal searches being made on the lodget that contract was broken under pressure.
There may therefore be a claim, however taking this thread at face value and piecing together the rest, I'd go with there being a breach under pressure on your part.
Your lodger would have a reasonable right to privacy, which you have not respected, especially as I can see there have been no threats towards you and no expectation of such.
I am therefore still of the opinion that something between £0 and 5 months rent may be owed as a result of what's been implied here.
That would be fine had he not intentionally lied. See the issue?
The fact the credit and DBS check was going to be carried out wasn't hidden or done in secret. He even had the option on the DBS check to actually withhold sharing the result as I know it's asked, it also has a declaration on who it's shared with and they choose some, one, all or none. He consented to all, and my argument is he knew at that point I was going to find out despite declaring earlier he had no un-spent convictions.
Really don't think he's got a case, and I'm now determined to just tell him to take it to court. His actions voided the contract through dishonesty and being opportunistic.
https://unlock.org.uk/advice/private-rented-housing/
I don't have any criminal convictions and don't rent, so can't confirm from experience, but your actions are not a standard practice I've seen when renting a property or room. A credit check for this purpose would generally be ok however.
Checks on criminal records can only be completed in certain circumstances, and I don't believe (but as you are protesting I'm wrong have asked a property professional who will probably get back to me tomorrow) that lettings is one of these exceptions.
In any event, a 6 month contract was signed and the lodger moved in before any concerns were raised via your further checks, with no evidence that the history would be aimed at you. Even if these were legal (which I believe it wasn't unless something else regulated was going on within the property), this should have been done before move in (or even more preferably via a separate contract before the license agreement was signed) to keep you in the clear.
There would be some circumstances where that would be reasonable and many where it wouldn't. The one that immediately springs to mind would be that you're a foster carer or police officer, however even in the latter case I'm not sure that would be automatically fair on your lodger. I don't think a standard check would be reasonable in any event (with some things I can immediately think of going against this), but in some circumstances a basic check may be.themastergoose said:
It is my employer who requires anyone living at the address to undergo a standard DBS check. I'm not going to go into why, but it's not illegal in the slightest.CKhalvashi said:
You would not have the right to effectively CRB check someone for the purpose of a tenancy agreement. These can only be used in certain circumstances. I cannot (and would not want to) effectively check all of my staff unless either a legal requirement states this must be done (which is applicable for some staff) or doing so would be both legal and make sense.themastergoose said:
Are you serious? The lodger WAS checked for everything bar background checking, and it clearly states that if anything differs from his disclosure when the report finally comes back he MAY have the agreement terminated.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
The lodger wasn't pressured to leave. He lied, end of. I served notice because of it, and he chose to leave early and also collected his deposit back and un-used days he'd paid for.
The checks were not illegal neither. I'm amused everyone keeps on saying that they were.
I have included the link below for companies, but if not, can you show in law where this would be necessary or proportionate for the (now broken) contract you hold with your lodger?
https://www.gov.uk/find-out-dbs-check
In short, yes, I am serious unless you have been threatened (which still wouldn't require this check, it would require a police call) or there is something regulated going on within the property that you have not mentioned in this thread.
As a court claim would take 1.5 days of salary to earn, I am still sure the money to you would have been forthcoming and therefore there is no issue with this, and withholding any threats, am sure there was no need for you to invade the privacy of your lodger beyond the fact there was not a danger to you and the rent could be paid.
If it's found to not be reasonable, you may have a claim against your employer.
Once again, in many years dealing with the rental market (as just about everything but a tenant or agent), I have never seen this term included.
If you are a foster carer, speak to your social worker. If you're a police officer, speak to your fed rep. If you're neither, seek legal advice is going to be where I'll leave this for you.5 -
With a valid contract, which for some reason has been broken. I'm not able to work out why, however if I sign a 6 month contract, I'd expect to get 6 months of services.Andthen07 said:
The bloke was a lodger dude, one step up from Airbnb.CKhalvashi said:
Yes, you can ask but cannot specifically do the checks.themastergoose said:
So based on your logic, he's entitled to keep his criminal record private for un-spent convictions and by extension he could then also choose to withhold anything else he wanted to do so as well, because I should respect his privacy and not hold his past against him.CKhalvashi said:
It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.Andthen07 said:
Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
As I've stated, a 6 month contract was signed, it's highly possible that as a result of illegal searches being made on the lodget that contract was broken under pressure.
There may therefore be a claim, however taking this thread at face value and piecing together the rest, I'd go with there being a breach under pressure on your part.
Your lodger would have a reasonable right to privacy, which you have not respected, especially as I can see there have been no threats towards you and no expectation of such.
I am therefore still of the opinion that something between £0 and 5 months rent may be owed as a result of what's been implied here.
That would be fine had he not intentionally lied. See the issue?
The fact the credit and DBS check was going to be carried out wasn't hidden or done in secret. He even had the option on the DBS check to actually withhold sharing the result as I know it's asked, it also has a declaration on who it's shared with and they choose some, one, all or none. He consented to all, and my argument is he knew at that point I was going to find out despite declaring earlier he had no un-spent convictions.
Really don't think he's got a case, and I'm now determined to just tell him to take it to court. His actions voided the contract through dishonesty and being opportunistic.
https://unlock.org.uk/advice/private-rented-housing/
I don't have any criminal convictions and don't rent, so can't confirm from experience, but your actions are not a standard practice I've seen when renting a property or room. A credit check for this purpose would generally be ok however.
Checks on criminal records can only be completed in certain circumstances, and I don't believe (but as you are protesting I'm wrong have asked a property professional who will probably get back to me tomorrow) that lettings is one of these exceptions.
In any event, a 6 month contract was signed and the lodger moved in before any concerns were raised via your further checks, with no evidence that the history would be aimed at you. Even if these were legal (which I believe it wasn't unless something else regulated was going on within the property), this should have been done before move in (or even more preferably via a separate contract before the license agreement was signed) to keep you in the clear.
There would be some circumstances where that would be reasonable and many where it wouldn't. The one that immediately springs to mind would be that you're a foster carer or police officer, however even in the latter case I'm not sure that would be automatically fair on your lodger. I don't think a standard check would be reasonable in any event (with some things I can immediately think of going against this), but in some circumstances a basic check may be.themastergoose said:
It is my employer who requires anyone living at the address to undergo a standard DBS check. I'm not going to go into why, but it's not illegal in the slightest.CKhalvashi said:
You would not have the right to effectively CRB check someone for the purpose of a tenancy agreement. These can only be used in certain circumstances. I cannot (and would not want to) effectively check all of my staff unless either a legal requirement states this must be done (which is applicable for some staff) or doing so would be both legal and make sense.themastergoose said:
Are you serious? The lodger WAS checked for everything bar background checking, and it clearly states that if anything differs from his disclosure when the report finally comes back he MAY have the agreement terminated.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
The lodger wasn't pressured to leave. He lied, end of. I served notice because of it, and he chose to leave early and also collected his deposit back and un-used days he'd paid for.
The checks were not illegal neither. I'm amused everyone keeps on saying that they were.
I have included the link below for companies, but if not, can you show in law where this would be necessary or proportionate for the (now broken) contract you hold with your lodger?
https://www.gov.uk/find-out-dbs-check
In short, yes, I am serious unless you have been threatened (which still wouldn't require this check, it would require a police call) or there is something regulated going on within the property that you have not mentioned in this thread.
As a court claim would take 1.5 days of salary to earn, I am still sure the money to you would have been forthcoming and therefore there is no issue with this, and withholding any threats, am sure there was no need for you to invade the privacy of your lodger beyond the fact there was not a danger to you and the rent could be paid.
If it's found to not be reasonable, you may have a claim against your employer.
Once again, in many years dealing with the rental market (as just about everything but a tenant or agent), I have never seen this term included.
If you are a foster carer, speak to your social worker. If you're a police officer, speak to your fed rep. If you're neither, seek legal advice is going to be where I'll leave this for you.
It's possible there is information missing, however I've given the 2 most common scenarios I can think of from the missing information. It's upsetting that you don't believe someone in work, even with criminal convictions, should not have somewhere to live as a result of checks that should have been done before signing contracts not being done.
I have attempted to help as best as I can given the sensitivity of the situation and that a third party may be acting unlawfully in this situation, taking this into account.💙💛 💔-1 -
Shame you can't be downvoted...CKhalvashi said:
With a valid contract, which for some reason has been broken. I'm not able to work out why, however if I sign a 6 month contract, I'd expect to get 6 months of services.Andthen07 said:
The bloke was a lodger dude, one step up from Airbnb.CKhalvashi said:
Yes, you can ask but cannot specifically do the checks.themastergoose said:
So based on your logic, he's entitled to keep his criminal record private for un-spent convictions and by extension he could then also choose to withhold anything else he wanted to do so as well, because I should respect his privacy and not hold his past against him.CKhalvashi said:
It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.Andthen07 said:
Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
As I've stated, a 6 month contract was signed, it's highly possible that as a result of illegal searches being made on the lodget that contract was broken under pressure.
There may therefore be a claim, however taking this thread at face value and piecing together the rest, I'd go with there being a breach under pressure on your part.
Your lodger would have a reasonable right to privacy, which you have not respected, especially as I can see there have been no threats towards you and no expectation of such.
I am therefore still of the opinion that something between £0 and 5 months rent may be owed as a result of what's been implied here.
That would be fine had he not intentionally lied. See the issue?
The fact the credit and DBS check was going to be carried out wasn't hidden or done in secret. He even had the option on the DBS check to actually withhold sharing the result as I know it's asked, it also has a declaration on who it's shared with and they choose some, one, all or none. He consented to all, and my argument is he knew at that point I was going to find out despite declaring earlier he had no un-spent convictions.
Really don't think he's got a case, and I'm now determined to just tell him to take it to court. His actions voided the contract through dishonesty and being opportunistic.
https://unlock.org.uk/advice/private-rented-housing/
I don't have any criminal convictions and don't rent, so can't confirm from experience, but your actions are not a standard practice I've seen when renting a property or room. A credit check for this purpose would generally be ok however.
Checks on criminal records can only be completed in certain circumstances, and I don't believe (but as you are protesting I'm wrong have asked a property professional who will probably get back to me tomorrow) that lettings is one of these exceptions.
In any event, a 6 month contract was signed and the lodger moved in before any concerns were raised via your further checks, with no evidence that the history would be aimed at you. Even if these were legal (which I believe it wasn't unless something else regulated was going on within the property), this should have been done before move in (or even more preferably via a separate contract before the license agreement was signed) to keep you in the clear.
There would be some circumstances where that would be reasonable and many where it wouldn't. The one that immediately springs to mind would be that you're a foster carer or police officer, however even in the latter case I'm not sure that would be automatically fair on your lodger. I don't think a standard check would be reasonable in any event (with some things I can immediately think of going against this), but in some circumstances a basic check may be.themastergoose said:
It is my employer who requires anyone living at the address to undergo a standard DBS check. I'm not going to go into why, but it's not illegal in the slightest.CKhalvashi said:
You would not have the right to effectively CRB check someone for the purpose of a tenancy agreement. These can only be used in certain circumstances. I cannot (and would not want to) effectively check all of my staff unless either a legal requirement states this must be done (which is applicable for some staff) or doing so would be both legal and make sense.themastergoose said:
Are you serious? The lodger WAS checked for everything bar background checking, and it clearly states that if anything differs from his disclosure when the report finally comes back he MAY have the agreement terminated.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
The lodger wasn't pressured to leave. He lied, end of. I served notice because of it, and he chose to leave early and also collected his deposit back and un-used days he'd paid for.
The checks were not illegal neither. I'm amused everyone keeps on saying that they were.
I have included the link below for companies, but if not, can you show in law where this would be necessary or proportionate for the (now broken) contract you hold with your lodger?
https://www.gov.uk/find-out-dbs-check
In short, yes, I am serious unless you have been threatened (which still wouldn't require this check, it would require a police call) or there is something regulated going on within the property that you have not mentioned in this thread.
As a court claim would take 1.5 days of salary to earn, I am still sure the money to you would have been forthcoming and therefore there is no issue with this, and withholding any threats, am sure there was no need for you to invade the privacy of your lodger beyond the fact there was not a danger to you and the rent could be paid.
If it's found to not be reasonable, you may have a claim against your employer.
Once again, in many years dealing with the rental market (as just about everything but a tenant or agent), I have never seen this term included.
If you are a foster carer, speak to your social worker. If you're a police officer, speak to your fed rep. If you're neither, seek legal advice is going to be where I'll leave this for you.
It's possible there is information missing, however I've given the 2 most common scenarios I can think of from the missing information. It's upsetting that you don't believe someone in work, even with criminal convictions, should not have somewhere to live as a result of checks that should have been done before signing contracts not being done.
I have attempted to help as best as I can given the sensitivity of the situation and that a third party may be acting unlawfully in this situation, taking this into account.I've sold my signature spot as an NFT.5 -
And it's a shame you're hiding what is obviously important information to be able to make a mental decision on the full circumstances.themastergoose said:
Shame you can't be downvoted...CKhalvashi said:
With a valid contract, which for some reason has been broken. I'm not able to work out why, however if I sign a 6 month contract, I'd expect to get 6 months of services.Andthen07 said:
The bloke was a lodger dude, one step up from Airbnb.CKhalvashi said:
Yes, you can ask but cannot specifically do the checks.themastergoose said:
So based on your logic, he's entitled to keep his criminal record private for un-spent convictions and by extension he could then also choose to withhold anything else he wanted to do so as well, because I should respect his privacy and not hold his past against him.CKhalvashi said:
It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.Andthen07 said:
Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
As I've stated, a 6 month contract was signed, it's highly possible that as a result of illegal searches being made on the lodget that contract was broken under pressure.
There may therefore be a claim, however taking this thread at face value and piecing together the rest, I'd go with there being a breach under pressure on your part.
Your lodger would have a reasonable right to privacy, which you have not respected, especially as I can see there have been no threats towards you and no expectation of such.
I am therefore still of the opinion that something between £0 and 5 months rent may be owed as a result of what's been implied here.
That would be fine had he not intentionally lied. See the issue?
The fact the credit and DBS check was going to be carried out wasn't hidden or done in secret. He even had the option on the DBS check to actually withhold sharing the result as I know it's asked, it also has a declaration on who it's shared with and they choose some, one, all or none. He consented to all, and my argument is he knew at that point I was going to find out despite declaring earlier he had no un-spent convictions.
Really don't think he's got a case, and I'm now determined to just tell him to take it to court. His actions voided the contract through dishonesty and being opportunistic.
https://unlock.org.uk/advice/private-rented-housing/
I don't have any criminal convictions and don't rent, so can't confirm from experience, but your actions are not a standard practice I've seen when renting a property or room. A credit check for this purpose would generally be ok however.
Checks on criminal records can only be completed in certain circumstances, and I don't believe (but as you are protesting I'm wrong have asked a property professional who will probably get back to me tomorrow) that lettings is one of these exceptions.
In any event, a 6 month contract was signed and the lodger moved in before any concerns were raised via your further checks, with no evidence that the history would be aimed at you. Even if these were legal (which I believe it wasn't unless something else regulated was going on within the property), this should have been done before move in (or even more preferably via a separate contract before the license agreement was signed) to keep you in the clear.
There would be some circumstances where that would be reasonable and many where it wouldn't. The one that immediately springs to mind would be that you're a foster carer or police officer, however even in the latter case I'm not sure that would be automatically fair on your lodger. I don't think a standard check would be reasonable in any event (with some things I can immediately think of going against this), but in some circumstances a basic check may be.themastergoose said:
It is my employer who requires anyone living at the address to undergo a standard DBS check. I'm not going to go into why, but it's not illegal in the slightest.CKhalvashi said:
You would not have the right to effectively CRB check someone for the purpose of a tenancy agreement. These can only be used in certain circumstances. I cannot (and would not want to) effectively check all of my staff unless either a legal requirement states this must be done (which is applicable for some staff) or doing so would be both legal and make sense.themastergoose said:
Are you serious? The lodger WAS checked for everything bar background checking, and it clearly states that if anything differs from his disclosure when the report finally comes back he MAY have the agreement terminated.CKhalvashi said:
This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.Giddypip said:
I wouldn't bother replying at all.themastergoose said:
Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?pjcox2005 said:Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.
My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.
On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.
Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.
Best of luck.
A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.
I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.
I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.
The lodger wasn't pressured to leave. He lied, end of. I served notice because of it, and he chose to leave early and also collected his deposit back and un-used days he'd paid for.
The checks were not illegal neither. I'm amused everyone keeps on saying that they were.
I have included the link below for companies, but if not, can you show in law where this would be necessary or proportionate for the (now broken) contract you hold with your lodger?
https://www.gov.uk/find-out-dbs-check
In short, yes, I am serious unless you have been threatened (which still wouldn't require this check, it would require a police call) or there is something regulated going on within the property that you have not mentioned in this thread.
As a court claim would take 1.5 days of salary to earn, I am still sure the money to you would have been forthcoming and therefore there is no issue with this, and withholding any threats, am sure there was no need for you to invade the privacy of your lodger beyond the fact there was not a danger to you and the rent could be paid.
If it's found to not be reasonable, you may have a claim against your employer.
Once again, in many years dealing with the rental market (as just about everything but a tenant or agent), I have never seen this term included.
If you are a foster carer, speak to your social worker. If you're a police officer, speak to your fed rep. If you're neither, seek legal advice is going to be where I'll leave this for you.
It's possible there is information missing, however I've given the 2 most common scenarios I can think of from the missing information. It's upsetting that you don't believe someone in work, even with criminal convictions, should not have somewhere to live as a result of checks that should have been done before signing contracts not being done.
I have attempted to help as best as I can given the sensitivity of the situation and that a third party may be acting unlawfully in this situation, taking this into account.
Either way I will respectfully withdraw as it's obvious that information required to make this decision will not be forthcoming.
I wish your lodger the best of luck in court.💙💛 💔0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards