Lodger lied during application, outcome on page 29...!

Andthen07

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

CKhalvashi said:

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

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. 

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?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

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.

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.

Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure. 

It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.

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.

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.

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. 

Yes, you can ask but cannot specifically do the checks.

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.

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

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. 

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?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The bloke was a lodger dude, one step up from Airbnb. 

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.

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.

Excluded occupier plus this :

• there’s a clause in your agreement which allows it to end early if you break certain terms - and you’ve broken the terms

GDB2222

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

CKhalvashi said:

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

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. 

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?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

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.

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.

Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure. 

It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.

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.

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.

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. 

Yes, you can ask but cannot specifically do the checks.

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.

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

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. 

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?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The bloke was a lodger dude, one step up from Airbnb. 

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.

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.

Shame you can't be downvoted...

You don’t need to take any of the advice that you are getting on the forum. But, do bear in mind that it is being given free of charge, and 99% of posters are well meaning and trying to help you. In the circumstances, being rather churlish seems inappropriate. 

newsgroupmonkey_

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

CKhalvashi said:

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

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. 

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?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

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.

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.

Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure. 

It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.

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.

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.

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. 

Yes, you can ask but cannot specifically do the checks.

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.

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

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. 

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?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The bloke was a lodger dude, one step up from Airbnb. 

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.

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.

This is a weird post missing out most of the detail.
1. the lodger was aware that he needed a clean CRB and chose to share it with the OP. So he broke the contract.
It’s not an unfair request as despite the rehabilitation act, unspent convictions are not a protected trait.
2. The lodger moved out under his own steam. He wasn’t forced out.
3. He’s clearly mistakenly thinking he’s a tenant when he in fact isn't
4. The charges are ridiculous. You can’t ask for 5 months of the rent you would have paid. You can claim back your actual losses (which in this case are nothing)

The only thing that might stand up is the “all inclusive” which would be worth maybe £25 at best, 

michelle09

themastergoose said:

Let me clarify - I disagree with the whole "everything's included" aspect. What he's hinging on is the advert stated "All inclusive bills". The agreement he read and signed simply states "includes all bills". He's saying because it doesn't specify utility bills he's got a case.

The problem I have with his interpretation of it is basically this: He can dirty as many bath towels as he likes for example - that not only I have to provide, it's up to me to wash them and keep him supplied. Same with bedding, like sheets, pillowcases etc. I'm not a live in maid and that's been made perfectly clear to him and he called me an *** **** because of it. On top of the fact he then thinks it's entirely acceptable to run off a list of things he wants be to keep replacing because he's either ate it or used it is a joke (Loo Rolls, Bathroom towels, shower gel, soap, toilet and surface cleaner, basic dried foods - pasta, rice etc, tea, coffee, milk, sugar). You guys get the idea.

You find me a landlord who's going to do this. I provide the room, make sure all bills and insurance is in place, furniture, make sure nothing in the house is broken/disrepair. I'm astounded people here believe landlords should provide everything else he's asking for also?

I've spent many years as a lodger, and then a few years as a landlord when I was able to buy my own place.

Laundered towels and bedding is above and beyond and I'd never expect it. But toilet roll and cleaning products is something I believe a landlord should supply. I was happy enough to take a turn cleaning a shared bathroom but would never have purchased the products to do it. You say that none of your lodgers have ever kept the communal areas clean, maybe try providing surface spray next time and see if that helps. I never had an issue with lodgers spraying the shower when they'd finished with it etc.

Every live-in landlord I had supplied them and I provided them when we had lodgers.

theoretica

Going on how the words used to be used - board and lodging - seems he is confused over that too.  If he were boarding then towels, laundry and at least some food would be likely, but lodging alone they aren't to be expected.

CKhalvashi

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

CKhalvashi said:

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

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. 

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?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

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.

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.

Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure. 

It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.

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.

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.

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. 

Yes, you can ask but cannot specifically do the checks.

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.

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

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. 

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?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The bloke was a lodger dude, one step up from Airbnb. 

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.

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.

This is a weird post missing out most of the detail.
1. the lodger was aware that he needed a clean CRB and chose to share it with the OP. So he broke the contract.
It’s not an unfair request as despite the rehabilitation act, unspent convictions are not a protected trait.
2. The lodger moved out under his own steam. He wasn’t forced out.
3. He’s clearly mistakenly thinking he’s a tenant when he in fact isn't
4. The charges are ridiculous. You can’t ask for 5 months of the rent you would have paid. You can claim back your actual losses (which in this case are nothing)

The only thing that might stand up is the “all inclusive” which would be worth maybe £25 at best, 

So in that case, a basic (not standard) disclosure would have been sufficient.

I have (quite correctly) questioned the legality of the actions of the OP here, as with this being a contract from a business to a consumer this would in my view be an unfair term. A landlord is a businessperson in this capacity. This view is backed up by the owner of a local lettings agency (who I asked last night as a matter of interest to ensure my advice is consistent and correct).

Once again, I have never seen a background check as part of a requirement for renting a property. I believe that unless there are legal and justified requirements for this to be done (OP has skirted the question repeatedly so I can only assume there are not,  bearing in mind I can only work at face value) then it is likely to me that some compensation will rightly be payable.

Whether someone lied or not is irrelevant if something is being used against them illegally in my opinion. This could have been to protect them from the illegality of OP's actions as I can see the situation from what has been presented here.

Chris_English

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

CKhalvashi said:

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

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. 

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?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

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.

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.

Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure. 

It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.

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.

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.

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. 

Yes, you can ask but cannot specifically do the checks.

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.

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

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. 

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?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The bloke was a lodger dude, one step up from Airbnb. 

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.

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.

The contract wasn’t broken, he left. 

GDB2222

Chris_English said:

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

CKhalvashi said:

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

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. 

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?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

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.

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.

Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure. 

It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.

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.

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.

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. 

Yes, you can ask but cannot specifically do the checks.

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.

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

themastergoose said:

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

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. 

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?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The bloke was a lodger dude, one step up from Airbnb. 

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.

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.

The contract wasn’t broken, he left. 

He did not leave of his own accord.

theoretica

I have not double checked, but think that some of the convictions mentioned would have come up on a basic disclosure.  Which would make the question of whether it should have been a basic or standard disclosure one of mainly technical relevance rather than practically affecting the outcome that he was asked to leave.

CKhalvashi

theoretica said:

I have not double checked, but think that some of the convictions mentioned would have come up on a basic disclosure.  Which would make the question of whether it should have been a basic or standard disclosure one of mainly technical relevance rather than practically affecting the outcome that he was asked to leave.

Anything not spent will do so, and I believe (but again haven't checked, I can on request) that there is at least one conviction there that will never be spent.

Whether it's a technical matter or not may come down to the judge on the day (and OP if relevant would be lucky in this case, taking into account that OP has refused to answer the question directly so maintaining there would be very limited circumstances in which this would be reasonable or proportionate it could be which I've briefly gone into), however legally I believe it could make a difference as to whether that part of the contract would be a reasonable term, which could open a broad range of possibilities with regards to how seriously this could be taken.

It's also possibly worth noting that anything domestic is difficult conviction-wise, as it could be raised the convictions wouldn't necessarily be relevant in a lodger/landlord type of situation, given the circumstances in which they arose. I will openly admit I'll act differently around OH in certain situations, and whilst I'm personally not violent (and never have been), in high pressure situations if it were anyone else, they could quite rightly feel scared in that situation. I believe most people can admit to being similar in certain situations.

In addition it would be perfectly normal in an employment situation for the person being checked to be able to explain the circumstances in full and not necessarily be judged on this. Given the lodger had lived with the OP before the checks came back and there were no concerns anything criminal may occur in this arrangement before the checks came back may or may not negate any defence OP may have.

Even if OP doesn't want to come back to me on this one, I'd like them to have a think about everything I've written and how they would defend this in court, as it's obvious we don't know the full situation or everything that's happened from evasiveness to certain questions, which is why I'm possibly taking an approach that is not the correct one due to lack of info and assuming this is a 'normal' household situation. I've volunteered to help people with housing-related matters in the past, so I'm also looking at this from the other side to OP (if I were the lodger, this is what I'd be raising as part of the claim), as I believe challenging them from the opinion I've been able to form from what they have said is the correct way to go here.