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

brianposter

"with this being a contract from a business to a consumer "

This seems to be the fundamental flaw in CKs arguments. A simple lodging agreement is not a business to consumer transaction.

It is also nonsense to argue that a credit check is not an invasion of privacy but a CRB check may be,

Chris_English

GDB2222 said:

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.

He did. He could have argued, or stayed to the end of his notice, but he left.I should be surprised at people trying their hardest to find a way to blame the poor OP here and support the convicted criminal who lied his way into her house, but I’m not.

CKhalvashi

brianposter said:

"with this being a contract from a business to a consumer "

This seems to be the fundamental flaw in CKs arguments. A simple lodging agreement is not a business to consumer transaction.

It is also nonsense to argue that a credit check is not an invasion of privacy but a CRB check may be,

It's a property license, which is a business to consumer transaction.

A credit check will be proportionate before potentially offering credit. A CRB check goes beyond what is necessary or proportionate.

Chris_English said:

GDB2222 said:

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.

He did. He could have argued, or stayed to the end of his notice, but he left.I should be surprised at people trying their hardest to find a way to blame the poor OP here and support the convicted criminal who lied his way into her house, but I’m not.

Leaving under pressure is not leaving on ones own accord. There is nothing to suggest a breach of contract hasn't taken place on the part of the OP here with undue and unreasonable pressure, paired with unfair contract terms being a large part of that.

I assume you don't believe in rehabilitation or looking at the full circumstances regarding the convictions, which it doesn't look like OP has done, thus ending with them in this situation.

If there was a risk to OP, this would have come out before it did.

I support proportionate actions and legal processes being followed. From my experience and understanding of the legislation and contract law they have not been in this case.

deannagone

|I believe the OP is being hounded on here a little bit.  There is nothing 'illegal' about obtaining CRB checks for which the lodger was informed and  gave consent.  The lodger was not forced to give consent, they could very easily have found another lodging arrangement.  They chose to agree to the CRB check.  Its a good job the OP did as it turns out, because they had convictions that would worry many people when you are considering living in the same property with them.  The lodger's behaviour since has reinforced that concern about judgements and behaviour - there does seem to be iffy behaviour choices currently and in the recent past.  

The lodger has sustained no losses from the being asked to leave.., but is still not only expecting a refund for fairly expensive towels and goodness knows what else, but is claiming for the 5 and a bit months they won't be able to stay in the property. Frankly, I'd prefer to have my own soap and towels for hygiene reasons.  Their claim is ridiculous and reinforces the rightness of the LL's position.  Some of this is based on false assumptions (that they are a tenant not a lodger, with different LL obligations).  

I personally probably wouldn't have signed up for the room given the living conditions the LL wants.  But when younger, I lived in as a lodger in a house with no access to the living room and limited access to the kitchen.  I just took it for granted that this was the situation as I was fully informed beforehand.  I provided my own TV and lol, towels, soap, food (hotels where you get these provided are much more expensive).  But the OP can make these conditions.  Candidates are free to decide to walk away.., always.  I probably would have made the lodgers agreement more specific about bills only being included, it wouldn't be a six month lodger agreement, ever.   I probably would also wonder if it was a good idea to have a lodger if you have a job where CRB checks are necessary.  There's obviously a level of risk attached to their job that most LL's wouldn't have.  

We have no right on here to expect or demand the OP to give details of their employment, why the CRB checks have to be made.  We are not judge and jury.  We can choose to respond to the post, or not.  

JReacher1

Ironically the lodger probably got the LBA template from this site.  Its just a fishing exercise by the lodger and his Mother which is unlikely to go anywhere.  OP needs to reply back saying they don't agree with the claim and will be happy to defend it in court.  I doubt you'll hear from them again.

On a more practical level it is madness to let a room to someone before the background check was completed.  Especially if you have a job that is extremely strict about who you have in your property.  Seems a lack of common sense that you should be careful to not repeat again when you get your next lodger.  

Chris_English

CKhalvashi said:

brianposter said:

"with this being a contract from a business to a consumer "

This seems to be the fundamental flaw in CKs arguments. A simple lodging agreement is not a business to consumer transaction.

It is also nonsense to argue that a credit check is not an invasion of privacy but a CRB check may be,

It's a property license, which is a business to consumer transaction.

A credit check will be proportionate before potentially offering credit. A CRB check goes beyond what is necessary or proportionate.

Chris_English said:

GDB2222 said:

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.

He did. He could have argued, or stayed to the end of his notice, but he left.I should be surprised at people trying their hardest to find a way to blame the poor OP here and support the convicted criminal who lied his way into her house, but I’m not.

Leaving under pressure is not leaving on ones own accord. 

So the householder pressurised this hardened criminal into it?

Again, I should be surprised at people victim blaming, but sadly it happens a lot.

GDB2222

‘Chris_English said:

GDB2222 said:

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.

He did. He could have argued, or stayed to the end of his notice, but he left.I should be surprised at people trying their hardest to find a way to blame the poor OP here and support the convicted criminal who lied his way into her house, but I’m not.

I’m not blaming the op. I also would have required this lodger to leave in these circumstances.  

But, there’s no point your describing it as if the lodger just decided to leave of his own accord. That’s just confusing, which is why I corrected you.

themastergoose

CKhalvashi said:

brianposter said:

"with this being a contract from a business to a consumer "

This seems to be the fundamental flaw in CKs arguments. A simple lodging agreement is not a business to consumer transaction.

It is also nonsense to argue that a credit check is not an invasion of privacy but a CRB check may be,

It's a property license, which is a business to consumer transaction.

A credit check will be proportionate before potentially offering credit. A CRB check goes beyond what is necessary or proportionate.

Chris_English said:

GDB2222 said:

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.

He did. He could have argued, or stayed to the end of his notice, but he left.I should be surprised at people trying their hardest to find a way to blame the poor OP here and support the convicted criminal who lied his way into her house, but I’m not.

I assume you don't believe in rehabilitation or looking at the full circumstances regarding the convictions, which it doesn't look like OP has done, thus ending with them in this situation.

If there was a risk to OP, this would have come out before it did.

I did review the offences and was taking a very balanced view originally - especially with the older pre 2017 matters. The fact you mentioned about whether a basic over standard check would have been appropriate is irrelevant. Multiple offences are under the 7 year marker for filtering, and 3 are serious enough they're never considered spent no matter how many years old they are.

If I completely sidestep the fact he lied to obtain the property in the first place, the serious offence against a child that caused an immediate 3 year spell of imprisonment can't be ignored - Call me an *** if you want, but we're not talking about petty theft and minor offences. It's so serious he's banned from going within 1 mile of the child's home, school or having any contact full stop - even if that contact is indirect over say text messages or a phone call. He's on extended licence for a few more years and still under the probation service. As children visit my property from my family several times a week, I'd not be comfortable with that at all given his very recent history.

You also keep asking what I do for a living. The fact I've avoided the question is very intentional. See the thread reply below.

Rosa_Damascena

GDB2222 said:

canaldumidi said:

Rosa_Damascena said

Why feed the beast? It's a waste of your energy and will make your lodger think you give a damn.

.............................................................

I’ve answered that. If it goes to court, you’ll be quizzed about why you ignored the LBA. It’s a pointless risk. A brief reply is all that is required.

Have skipped the mass of responses because the facts speak for themselves. This chap has what is called in legalese "poor character". He isn't going to want FaceTime with a judge.

themastergoose

deannagone said:

|I believe the OP is being hounded on here a little bit.  There is nothing 'illegal' about obtaining CRB checks for which the lodger was informed and  gave consent.  The lodger was not forced to give consent, they could very easily have found another lodging arrangement.  They chose to agree to the CRB check.  Its a good job the OP did as it turns out, because they had convictions that would worry many people when you are considering living in the same property with them.  The lodger's behaviour since has reinforced that concern about judgements and behaviour - there does seem to be iffy behaviour choices currently and in the recent past.  

The lodger has sustained no losses from the being asked to leave.., but is still not only expecting a refund for fairly expensive towels and goodness knows what else, but is claiming for the 5 and a bit months they won't be able to stay in the property. Frankly, I'd prefer to have my own soap and towels for hygiene reasons.  Their claim is ridiculous and reinforces the rightness of the LL's position.  Some of this is based on false assumptions (that they are a tenant not a lodger, with different LL obligations).  

I personally probably wouldn't have signed up for the room given the living conditions the LL wants.  But when younger, I lived in as a lodger in a house with no access to the living room and limited access to the kitchen.  I just took it for granted that this was the situation as I was fully informed beforehand.  I provided my own TV and lol, towels, soap, food (hotels where you get these provided are much more expensive).  But the OP can make these conditions.  Candidates are free to decide to walk away.., always.  I probably would have made the lodgers agreement more specific about bills only being included, it wouldn't be a six month lodger agreement, ever.   I probably would also wonder if it was a good idea to have a lodger if you have a job where CRB checks are necessary.  There's obviously a level of risk attached to their job that most LL's wouldn't have.  

We have no right on here to expect or demand the OP to give details of their employment, why the CRB checks have to be made.  We are not judge and jury.  We can choose to respond to the post, or not.  

Exactly this, thank you. I don't work for a company. I'm extensively checked and continually re-checked for DV clearance and we can leave it at that. The organisation have a very valid and legal justification to check permanent residents of this address.

Lodger was given the choice about the check. He consented and offered a disclosure that was false, masking several very serious offences.

I'm not an ogre or deliberately being difficult neither. Living conditions here wouldn't bother the 99% who've come to view. It's a huge 21 Feet by 11.2 Feet room, has separate exclusive use en-suite, I provide all the furniture, bedding and even a large 55" 4K TV. Most don't care about a DBS check, happily provide their own towels and little home comforts they like to personalise the room and take it upon themselves to wash their own laundry and supply their own food. They also have unlimited use of the main bathroom, kitchen, garden and limited use of the lounge.

Far from restrictive, but oh yes - It's always the nasty, greedy, landlord at fault every time based on much of what I've seen others post here.