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

newsgroupmonkey_

CKhalvashi said:

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.

So most importantly, do you still take issue with 12 (b) and think that the lodger is entitled to disagree with it?

I also think the advert is pretty clear in what was expected too. I'm struggling to understand how anyone could argue against it?

CKhalvashi

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

CKhalvashi said:

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.

So most importantly, do you still take issue with 12 (b) and think that the lodger is entitled to disagree with it?

I also think the advert is pretty clear in what was expected too. I'm struggling to understand how anyone could argue against it?

On the facts, yes I take exception to that clause. 

The law says 'reasonable' without defining what is reasonable,  I hold that immediate is not reasonable and therefore open to challenge.

The advert is well written but the aim here is to resolve any further dispute, changing the clause does this.

pinkshoes

themastergoose said:

Attached the advert as someone asked for it:

 A very well written advert and clear it required a clear criminal check with no unspent convictions.

The fact he even applied implies he was up to scam some money out of it or hope you wouldn't actually do the check so he could stay.

Ms_Chocaholic

What did the references say about him?

themastergoose

So I have an update. I called his bluff last week, acknowledged his LBA and stated that I didn't believe he has a case. Today, the I receive a letter from the county court outlining his intentions (with one potentially very serious detail added that I'll cover below) and I'm invited to go to a website called Money Claims Online and provide a formal response, evidence and whether or not I prefer mediation before a court hearing if I contest it. It also has an option to simply just agree to pay the amount.

He's added on a further claim from the LBA. He's carried out further checks and uncovered that the property is a shared ownership (It is a shared ownership. Ratio is 81% to me, the company who built the property own the remaining 19% and reducing). He's gone on to explain that because I am paying part mortgage and part rent, I have no legal right to "sublet" as he put it, UNLESS he's offered a tenancy and I can also prove that the mortgage lender AND the house builder agreed to part of the property being rented out.

Because I am "renting" part of the property, he by extension must be offered a tenancy rather than a lodgers licence. He's claiming false advertising & deception and believes the entire agreement offered is illegal. He's asking for a further £250 in legal costs incurred (statement provided), £3 land registry check fee and a further refund of the rental money paid while he was here (£380.91).

This is in addition to his other points:

• Signed a 6 month minimum agreement that the landlord ended without appropriate notice being given. I was left homeless without notice.
• Landlord failed to place the deposit in a recognised protection scheme as required by law.
• 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.

He's still seeking 5 months and 1 week rent as compensation for me breaking the contract early. A further 3x his deposit amount for not using an approved scheme, and lastly £37 for a towel bundle and laundry detergent he had to supply "because I refused".

Total value of the claim is now at £5651.91 that he's asking for a decision on within 28 days. This includes the filing fee which is now £455 for some reason, and still intends to accrue interest on the balance being sought at £1 daily until a settlement is reached.

I think I need a solicitor at this point?

GrumpyDil

Interestingly the filing fee is correct as his claim is now in excess of 5000.

For some reason I can't paste the link but Google it. 

If you have legal cover on your home insurance might be worthwhile speaking to them but the fact he has filed a claim doesn't make it any more likely he'll win.

If he has genuinely filed a claim then note the time limits both to acknowledge the claim and then file a defence.

All people here can do is provide opinion. My opinion is that requiring you to register the deposit with one of the deposit protection schemes has no legs as this cannot have been a tenancy as he was sharing the property with you. As previously stated it was a lodger arrangement. 

He also can't claim for rent he hasn't paid you so that element is straight out of the picture.

Basically you need to defend this and I would make sure you include a claim for the time you spend dealing with this. Note you cannot generally claim legal fees in the small claims track.

To add I think all of the elements can be defended but you may want to consider mediation if you want to settle this sooner rather than later. 

themastergoose

GrumpyDil said:

Interestingly the filing fee is correct as his claim is now in excess of 5000.

For some reason I can't paste the link but Google it. 

If you have legal cover on your home insurance might be worthwhile speaking to them but the fact he has filed a claim doesn't make it any more likely he'll win.

If he has genuinely filed a claim then note the time limits both to acknowledge the claim and then file a defence.

All people here can do is provide opinion. My opinion is that requiring you to register the deposit with one of the deposit protection schemes has no legs as this cannot have been a tenancy as he was sharing the property with you. As previously stated it was a lodger arrangement. 

He also can't claim for rent he hasn't paid you so that element is straight out of the picture.

Basically you need to defend this and I would make sure you include a claim for the time you spend dealing with this. Note you cannot generally claim legal fees in the small claims track 

It's 14 days to acknowledge it says online, and you can request a further 14 days to file defence which I have requested. I've got 28 days to complete all paperwork it says. I wasn't aware you can't claim legal costs but he has done, so I'll bring that up?

GrumpyDil

He can claim his filing fees etc but if he tries to claim legal fees they are not normally allowed assuming this is handled within the small claims track which given the sum involved it should be.

His 1.00 daily interest is rubbish as well. I believe the court can award interest but generally only from the date that any order is paid and it is an a standard rate of 8% per annum.

It might be worthwhile looking at the legalbeagal forums where they could provide more specific advice/suggestions particularly about the process. 

JReacher1

Get a solicitor to defend you.  You also need to put some pressure back on him.  Acknowledge the request to get you the 28 days and make it clear in your response that you will be counter claiming for all costs you incur for defending this claim.

To be honest this bloke sounds incredibly odd so imagine he will continue to push this all the way until the court finds in your favour.  Don't let him bully you

FreeBear

JReacher1 said: Get a solicitor to defend you.

If you do opt for a solicitor, use one that understands the difference between a licence to occupy (lodger agreement) and a tenancy agreement. Not all do...

Much of his claim hinges on it being a tenancy as opposed to a licence to occupy, and the bulk of his "losses" are imaginary.