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

CKhalvashi

themastergoose said:

anotheruser said:

CKhalvashi said:

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. 

If you have no experience, is there much merit to your post?



People need to stop posting "I'm no expert" and "don't quote me on that but..." - the OP needs advice, not people guessing based on stuff they've heard or stuff they think should happen.

The last 10 pages have been near on exactly that.




@themastergoose - what is the latest?

Latest is that I've reply stating he doesn't have a case nor suffered any loss. I went into detail about each answer as per two earlier users who gave a great reply.

I'll wait and see what he does. I'm assuming he can't sit on it forever after issuing a letter and then say decide to start a claim in say July?

If there are potential losses he'd have 6 years. The limitation period can work slightly differently if claiming for other things, but I'd expect this to be done quite quickly if it's going to happen.

themastergoose

Attached the advert as someone asked for it:

GDB2222

themastergoose said:

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 specifies that the agreement may terminate without notice. The court could easily find that eviction without notice is an unfair term. 


 

Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes specific mention of tenancy agreements and letting agent contracts. There's nothing in it about a lodgers licence.

In the eyes of the law also, the room isn't offered on a commercial basis as I'm not set up as a business and it wasn't advertised under one neither. He's got a standard lodgers licence, NOT a contract.

I wish you luck.

MaryNB

themastergoose said:

MaryNB said:

anotheruser said:

themastergoose said:

GDB2222 said:

He does have some sort of argument over the toiletries, towels, etc. It’s crazy, in my view, to advertise the room as all inclusive, as it’s far too vague. 

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.

Hmm.
If I have foot rub bills, is that included?
Or a personal phone bill - is that included?
What about my credit card bill, does that count?

There needs to be a common sense limit - an example is many rentals that say exactly that "includes all bills".
I can't see a judge agreeing to consumables, such as food as included.  They may want caviar with every meal - would you be expected to supply that?  I don't think so.

I think OP has misremembered their own agreement. Obviously unless the OP posts the advert I can't comment on that, but the agreement clearly says utility bills.

Although it and a few more sections could be reworded a bit to avoid ambiguities going forward. 

I've not misremembered anything, but you're saying that because it says utility bills are "fully inclusive of the monthly rent", he'd have legal basis to claim his personal bills too?

Heck, why don't I just invite him to a slice of the proceeds of the house if I sell while I'm at it?

I was referring to this quote that anotheruser responded to:

themastergoose said:

GDB2222 said:

He does have some sort of argument over the toiletries, towels, etc. It’s crazy, in my view, to advertise the room as all inclusive, as it’s far too vague. 

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.

I was only trying to back you up. I think it's clear foot rubs and a chunk of your house are not included in the agreement that you posted a few pages ago. Most definitions of utility bills include a landline, not mobile but I have seen mobile phone mentioned as a utility in places. Rather than leaving it up to him to interpret what counts as a utility bill, just note "gas, electric, and water".  Is the TV licence included? Not a utility but a common household bill. 

CKhalvashi

OP, that advert has changed my mind on this, that looks a very clear advert, paired with a contract that apart from one issue states what the advert says. Whoever asked to see the advert (which I hadn't thought of but hadn't assumed the bottom part was present with such clear wording), thank you.

The only issue I can take with what you've done would be starting the contract before the checks had come back and potentially the words 'immediate termination of the contract without notice' under S12b of your contract, however I do wish we'd had the chance to look at this before you ended up in this situation.

From the advert being posted, I can conclude that the only reasonable action would possibly have been to allow him to stay for an additional week, and therefore even if that contract term is found to be unfair, this would be the only cost you'd potentially be liable for (again strictly viewing this as a contract for services). From just the contract (and even more so before this) there was a lot of ambiguity, however we can now see there was very little.

I publicly apologise for being hard on you (as I have in private although have stated my reasons), although this goes to show the difference having the full facts can make.

Reginald74

Chris_English said:

Dear Mr X's mother.

Your son, the habitual criminal, lied about his criminal pst to try to cheat his way into my house, knowing that this would give him access to a woman's home that he woudl never be able to get if you had brought him up to be honest.

Clearly in your family this is viewed as normal, but you ought to know that in normal families violent criminals don't have their mothers trying to find them access to their next victim. Because of your actions the police will now be informed that both you and he are actively trying to gain entry into people's houses dishonestly. If I hear from you again I will also contact the local paper to try to make sure that anyone else that he tries to cheat like this knows what you are up to."

This would be a real mistake

newsgroupmonkey_

I'll wait for the barrack room lawyer to come in and pick holes in the contract.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

TBagpuss

For future reference, I'd make some changes to your agreement.

For instance -  2 (c) I'd amend to make clear that it can be terminated earlier for breach - it's also ambiguous with 12 (c) 
Personally I would not have a set length in a lodgers agreement but if you want to, maybe word it as 'for a minimum period of 6 months save that the landlord may terminate the agreement before the end of that period in the event that that agreement is breached or as set out in section 12 of this agreement.

I'd also amend 12 - I would change the wording saying that agreement is void to say it will be terminated an the lodger will be required to move out. If the agreement is void then strictly speaking it is as if it never existed in the first place, which might make it harder to enforce provisions about retaining a deposit etc. 

Also n 12 (b ) - post occupancy would strictly speaking mean fter they moved out - I presume that you actually mean during their occupancy, so I'd change the wording to say so - perhaps word the section 

The landlord may end this agreement immediately in the event that the lodger:
- fails to  to disclose any criminal convictions which are unspent as at the date of this agreement
-  is convicted of any criminal offence after signing this agreement, 
- enters into an  IVA or is declared bankrupt.

You may also want to include somewhere provision that the lodger must inform you in the event that they are charged with or convicted of any criminal offence during the time they are living in the property. 

While it isn't relevant to the current dispute, you may also want to review the rest of it . For instance, it is meaningless to say the lodger has the right to negotiate if you put the rent up but a lodger could infer that that meant any increase would not be effective unless they agreed to it, I'd just leave it that you can review and and it can be increased if a min of 1 month notice is given, and that the tenant has the right to give notice to terminate the agreement and move out (even within the first 6 months) if there is an increase.

I would also rethink 5 and say that you will provide a breakdown of any deductions. , rather than receipts. You may not be able to get receipts fast enough and you would, presumably, still want to be able to make a deduction for breakages even if you then decided not to replace like-for-like or no longer had the original receipt. 

9c -phrase it as they must obtain permission before allowing anyone to stay (otherwise your saying as long as they seek it by asking you, they are fine, even if you don't reply or say no!) You may also want to tweak the bit about dependents - they could say anyone is a dependent - I'd perhaps frame it as saying dependents are permitted for up to two nights a week and provided that details are provided before the first visit, separate permission is not then required for subsequent visits . 

themastergoose

LOL, the post from @g3g_31 has been removed by a moderator...!

CKhalvashi

TBagpuss said:

For future reference, I'd make some changes to your agreement.

For instance -  2 (c) I'd amend to make clear that it can be terminated earlier for breach - it's also ambiguous with 12 (c) 
Personally I would not have a set length in a lodgers agreement but if you want to, maybe word it as 'for a minimum period of 6 months save that the landlord may terminate the agreement before the end of that period in the event that that agreement is breached or as set out in section 12 of this agreement.

I'd also amend 12 - I would change the wording saying that agreement is void to say it will be terminated an the lodger will be required to move out. If the agreement is void then strictly speaking it is as if it never existed in the first place, which might make it harder to enforce provisions about retaining a deposit etc. 

Also n 12 (b ) - post occupancy would strictly speaking mean fter they moved out - I presume that you actually mean during their occupancy, so I'd change the wording to say so - perhaps word the section 

The landlord may end this agreement immediately in the event that the lodger:
- fails to  to disclose any criminal convictions which are unspent as at the date of this agreement
-  is convicted of any criminal offence after signing this agreement, 
- enters into an  IVA or is declared bankrupt.

You may also want to include somewhere provision that the lodger must inform you in the event that they are charged with or convicted of any criminal offence during the time they are living in the property. 

While it isn't relevant to the current dispute, you may also want to review the rest of it . For instance, it is meaningless to say the lodger has the right to negotiate if you put the rent up but a lodger could infer that that meant any increase would not be effective unless they agreed to it, I'd just leave it that you can review and and it can be increased if a min of 1 month notice is given, and that the tenant has the right to give notice to terminate the agreement and move out (even within the first 6 months) if there is an increase.

I would also rethink 5 and say that you will provide a breakdown of any deductions. , rather than receipts. You may not be able to get receipts fast enough and you would, presumably, still want to be able to make a deduction for breakages even if you then decided not to replace like-for-like or no longer had the original receipt. 

9c -phrase it as they must obtain permission before allowing anyone to stay (otherwise your saying as long as they seek it by asking you, they are fine, even if you don't reply or say no!) You may also want to tweak the bit about dependents - they could say anyone is a dependent - I'd perhaps frame it as saying dependents are permitted for up to two nights a week and provided that details are provided before the first visit, separate permission is not then required for subsequent visits . 

As mentioned in previous pages with a few new thoughts;

I'd remove any reference to 6 months contract, ensuring it's a week by week contract with no minimum term.

Convictions reference are fine, however any reference to 'immediate' needs to be changed to '7 days notice' or similar. Similar to what TBagpuss has said. The reference to 'charged' is also important. The only reason I suggest this is due to the slim potential it may be deemed an unfair term, which will give OP more hassle than they need.

In addition, please don't give keys again until the checks have come back.

Apart from this, template agreements can be great, I use them a lot in business, but do occasionally (and this is one of the occasions) need to be adapted to meet the needs of both parties.

If you want help re-writing any specific terms, just ask and either I or someone here will gladly help.