We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Lodger lied during application, outcome on page 29...!
Options
Comments
-
canaldumidi said:So 2. (c) (ii) says a minimum of 6 months.12 (c) says may be ended by either party ... for any reason.So that makes no sense!7. is interesting: when did buildings insurance become required by law? I must have missed that!12 (a) & (b) also interesting: how does 'becomes void' differ from 'immediate termination'?
Mortgage lender requires building insurance, but it's irrelevant for the matter at hand.
Someone's who's behind on rent wouldn't necessarily face termination and immediate eviction. Depending on the circumstances for the late rent, the agreement would be voided and a replacement with differing terms issued.
Immediate termination would be reserved for serious matters, hence late rent is separate from other issues.I've sold my signature spot as an NFT.0 -
I'm replying to the LBA roughly along the lines of what @saajan_12 and @TBagpuss have said.I've sold my signature spot as an NFT.0
-
themastergoose said:I'm replying to the LBA roughly along the lines of what @saajan_12 and @TBagpuss have said.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0
-
themastergoose said:Had to remove some personal info, but here's what he signed:
No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
GDB2222 said:themastergoose said:Had to remove some personal info, but here's what he signed:10
-
emmajones1976 said:GDB2222 said:themastergoose said:Had to remove some personal info, but here's what he signed:I've sold my signature spot as an NFT.5
-
Thanks for that. My eyes glazed over by clause 12.
Presumably, there's some other document where the unspent convictions have failed to be disclosed? This document explains clearly, in language a layman can understand, that the lodger agreement will terminate without notice if unspent convictions were not disclosed.
It's strange that that absolutely vital document wasn't posted.
It does exist, doesn't it? Otherwise, how would clause 12b apply?
Although @themastergoose is clearly a private individual, he is offering this room on a commercial basis to a 'consumer'. There's a raft of consumer protection legislation, and the OP needs to show that Clause 12b was clearly explained at an early stage to the lodger, and explained in simple language.
The fact that my (really quite experienced, if rather aged) eyes missed clause 12b really does mean that the court could find that it falls foul of Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
In addition, the clause specifies that the agreement may terminate without notice. The court could easily find that eviction without notice is an unfair term.
No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?1 -
I originally thought the lodger had no chance of success. The more the OP posts, the better I think the lodger's chances are.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0
-
themastergoose said:Had to remove some personal info, but here's what he signed:
As rent is payable weekly under Section 3A, was a rent book provided? This would be a legal requirement under Section 4(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This could, in the modern world, be something as simple as a 3 line spreadsheet (date, payment, date recrived) on something like Google Docs (or a printed copy), so doesn't need to be a physical rent book. Failure to provide this is a criminal offence.
Section 12B of the agreement strictly wouldn't give a right to complete the checks required as a result of OP's work, however a Basic disclosure may be ok in this event under the contract wording. This should have also taken into account that some of the convictions would never become spent, however the full circumstances surrounding these convictions given section 2C(2) had already come into effect should possibly have been given more consideration. I'm not going too far into the work element of this as enough information has been given to cover this, but this possibly could have been more clear with something along the lines of 'Due to the employment of the landlord, a full DBS disclosure will be required'.
In addition, I wasn't there so can't judge his behaviour, but additionally neither was the judge, however if there was nothing to suggest there may be further criminal offences, a judge could take a dim view of section 12B and the circumstances around which this was effectively used. It's also possible it could be deemed an unfair term and removed from the agreement entirely, however I'm not sure what the chance of this happening may or may not be.
In any event it may be considered that the word 'immediately' may constitute an unfair term due to a legal right to 'reasonable notice', although note there is no definition of reasonable notice in law.
In short, I consider 12B to be unclear given the circumstances, to not state what may be required and to potentially be unfair on that basis.
I do note that to mitigate this a full refund of unused nights and deposit (from memory) has been given though, and will give OP credit for this.
💙💛 💔1 -
GDB2222 said:Thanks for that. My eyes glazed over by clause 12.
Presumably, there's some other document where the unspent convictions have failed to be disclosed? This document explains clearly, in language a layman can understand, that the lodger agreement will terminate without notice if unspent convictions were not disclosed.
It's strange that that absolutely vital document wasn't posted.
It does exist, doesn't it? Otherwise, how would clause 12b apply?
Although @themastergoose is clearly a private individual, he is offering this room on a commercial basis to a 'consumer'. There's a raft of consumer protection legislation, and the OP needs to show that Clause 12b was clearly explained at an early stage to the lodger, and explained in simple language.
The fact that my (really quite experienced, if rather aged) eyes missed clause 12b really does mean that the court could find that it falls foul of Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
In addition, the clause, as written specifies that the agreement may terminate without notice. The court could easily find that eviction without notice is an unfair term.
I’ll remind you again, he lied to secure the property. I’ll be amused if a judge sided with someone who deliberately lied and shows dishonesty.I've sold my signature spot as an NFT.1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards