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

JuanBallOfWimbledon

I mean, I believe in rehabilitation. I even believe that it’s possible for a person with a 16 year criminal history of violence, theft and god knows what else, to become a good person and an upstanding, valued member of society. But I sure as ship wouldn’t be testing that theory in my own home, alone.  

unforeseen

Working from home doing stuff that needs DV clearance and allowing you to have a random stranger as a lodger? 

pinkshoes

A friend of mine also works in a job where anyone under the same roof would require a full DBS check. They have to do this every 6 months and remain squeaky clean.

The 6 month contract was conditional and the lodger lied to get his foot in the door, knowing full well what the DBS would say.

Clearly a deceitful character and taking the p*ss trying to get money out if you. 

I would either ignore the letter, or perhaps reply politely stating it was a lodger license and not a tenancy so the deposit required no protection, the 6 month term was based on passing a DBS as per the conditions of your job which he agreed to. Unfortunately he was dishonest about this so the contract became void, he moved out before the end of the requested notice period and the deposit and extra rent was refunded in full.

newsgroupmonkey_

unforeseen said:

Working from home doing stuff that needs DV clearance and allowing you to have a random stranger as a lodger? 

No, not random stranger. Someone with a clear CRB.
Now, in the business, it’s accepted that just because someone doesn’t have a criminal record could mean that they’ve just not been caught. But you have to draw the line somewhere.

themastergoose

unforeseen said:

Working from home doing stuff that needs DV clearance and allowing you to have a random stranger as a lodger? 

Working from home despite the level of checking I'm required to pass is a lot more common than you'd think. My employer can't disallow a lodger, and he's not singled out for checking because he was a lodger. The check would be required on anyone who's going to be living here permanently - Partner, family, friends - It doesn't matter. 

Skiddaw1

@themastergoose , I can't add anything to what has already been said but just wanted to say I think you've been more than reasonable (despite what some posters appear to believe). I very much hope you hear nothing further from the Lodger From Hell and that your next lodger will prove to be far less problematic.

Jude57

unforeseen said:

Working from home doing stuff that needs DV clearance and allowing you to have a random stranger as a lodger? 

My former partner works in a similarly scrutinised role and has worked outside an office base for over 25 years, often at home. When our relationship became serious many years ago and I was to be staying at his home periodically, he had to report our relationship to his superiors. I was happy to agree to an enhanced background check as required by his employer, and for it to be repeated every six months or so for the length of our relationship. My own employer at the time required similar checks and, as I had nothing to hide, it didn't bother me. Both employers paid for the checks and I suppose to them, at least at the beginning I was a random stranger.

I'd think that although a random stranger may be unlikely to want to access confidential information, previous behaviour is the only indicator available to predict future conduct and some employers have good reason to vet, so far as possible, their employees and those with whom they closely associate. In my experience, those requirements are very clearly set out by the employer and of course, prospective employees (or partners or lodgers) are entirely free to walk away at that point.

[Deleted User]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the chances of such a chaotic individual following a plan and persisting over time  to take you to Court is in itself remote. 

Murphybear

CKhalvashi said:

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.

You make a lot of claims and give a lot of advice.  I would be interested to know whether you have any qualifications to say some of these things.  You say you have experience in the field but not as a tenant or agent.  You then go on to say that you have consulted the owner of a lettings agency to check your facts.  As I am sure you are aware anyone can call themselves a lettings agent with absolutely no training or qualifications.  

TBagpuss

I'd agree with those saying not to ignore the LBA.

I'd reply very briefly to say 

• Signed a 6 month minimum agreement that the landlord ended without appropriate notice being given. I was left homeless without notice.

  Contract was conditional on the DBS checks being completed and not revealing anything, this was clear from the outset  and was an express term of the agreement between you (I assume that you have it written into whatever he signed- if so,  refer to it e.g. as set out in para 13 of the agreement.). He was required to leave because he has serious, unspent criminal  convictions and reman on licence, and as such cannot meet the agreed requirement for the lodger agreement of having a  clean DBS check. 

 In addition, he was not made homeless without notice, he agreed to leave when it was clear that he could not meet the   agreed terms, and confirmed at the time that he had suitable alternate accommodation available to him with a family member.

• Landlord failed to place the deposit in a recognised protection scheme as required by law.

          As the arrangements was for a lodger, not a tenancy, there is no legal requirement to protect the tenancy

• The property was marketed as all inclusive, but the landlord in fact has lot's of exclusions and hidden extra costs not disclosed originally. Not exhaustive, but there's no basic consumable's and toiletries provided, no cleaning provisions and landlord wants to charge an additional £50 monthly for a towel and laundry service if I want it. The cost is manifestly expensive, possibly exploitive - and should be included as per the original advert.

         The ad set out that it was inclusive of *bills* and in the discussions before he moved in it was made explicitly clear that he  was responsible for dealing with his own laundry and clearing the spaces he had exclusive occupation of. Even if that were          not the case, he has suffered no loss

I would also include a paragraph to state explicitly that he has suffered no loss, as he was refunded his deposit, and also the proportion of the payment he had made in advance for the room , for the days after he left .

(I think it's unlikely that he will take this further, but if he does, it is likely to help that you have responded and have been clear, and of course it means that oy have placed on record that he was refunded . Keep a copy of the letter and your response just in case he does pursue it. )

I can't comment on the legality of the check - did your employer actually carry it out  or did he do it himself and share the result? Presumably if your employer did it they have a standard and legally vetted form or consent that he signed.