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

themastergoose

GDB2222 said:

themastergoose said:

Quick update if ppl are still following this. He’s declined mediation so it’s going to a full hearing at some date at the county court.

I can’t gauge whether he’s being serious and is going to attend and attempt a defence, or he’s spend the money and just longing this out to annoy me for whatever reason? I guess I’ll soon find out.

Given that you find these proceedings annoying, the obvious course would be to try to settle the matter. My understanding is that you have made no attempt to do so. 

Tactically, he’s right to refuse mediation, as it only works if both parties are prepared to settle.

Why would I try and settle the matter with the criminal? He's asking for £5651.91 and I'm not negotiating anything above £0.00. I requested mediation, he refused it.

Both parties don't need to agree a settlement figure because I'm not giving him a penny and would have drove that point home very clearly and explained why his claim has zero weight behind it. Paying him anything towards all of this would imply I accept his claim and was at fault. That's not happening.

themastergoose

davemorton said:

Just a thought, have you changed the locks/would he have had a chance to get a set of keys cut?

I changed the locks the very next day.

NameUnavailable

themastergoose said:

GDB2222 said:

themastergoose said:

Quick update if ppl are still following this. He’s declined mediation so it’s going to a full hearing at some date at the county court.

I can’t gauge whether he’s being serious and is going to attend and attempt a defence, or he’s spend the money and just longing this out to annoy me for whatever reason? I guess I’ll soon find out.

Given that you find these proceedings annoying, the obvious course would be to try to settle the matter. My understanding is that you have made no attempt to do so. 

Tactically, he’s right to refuse mediation, as it only works if both parties are prepared to settle.

Why would I try and settle the matter with the criminal? He's asking for £5651.91 and I'm not negotiating anything above £0.00. I requested mediation, he refused it.

Both parties don't need to agree a settlement figure because I'm not giving him a penny and would have drove that point home very clearly and explained why his claim has zero weight behind it. Paying him anything towards all of this would imply I accept his claim and was at fault. That's not happening.

I handled a case for a company I worked for, a case over a debt went to SCC and mediation. The mediation was basically a guy on the phone asking what we'd settle for - they just try to agree a figure between both parties to save court time. If you went to mediation and then said you weren't prepared to offer anything that would look bad on you! As the other party have refused that should work in your favour.

SavingPennies_2

CKhalvashi said:

SavingPennies_2 said:

hazyjo said:

CKhalvashi said:

hazyjo said:

CKhalvashi said:

hazyjo said:

Have a really good Google for similar stories. Think it's already been said, but I'm sure he's prob done this before and targeted you due to your ad saying about checks.

What a nasty human being.

But on the basis of everything we've seen here, I don't believe OP has been unreasonable in their requests to the lodger given their full circumstances and the clarity in the advert.

However much I've picked on specific contract terms, OP has acted reasonably in these dealings. I find it difficult to see where the lodger feels they'd win in this case.

Absolutely agree, hence my post. They're probably hoping for an out of court settlement. Was hoping people in similar positions might be able to help, or could be used against this conman.

From my experience based on what we have seen, I would attempt to defend in full. I have stated most of my reasons for this and am open to discuss with the OP any other position they may wish to take.

My professional knowledge may be a bit rusty and not from these exact circumstances, but I firmly believe it would be unjust for OP to have to pay anything further than a week of rent (and even then I'm not sure they should pay that, just that it would be a maximum) on the basis of the information posted here.

I still agree.

To clarify, the lodger is a chancer and the OP should fight this all the way and not offer to pay a penny.

What I was also saying is that he's probably done this before. It may be helpful for the OP to try to find these people.

I agree, I think a lot of people in this situation would be scared (of spiralling costs, getting into a legal dispute or even of the person himself) and would just pay up to get rid of the problem. I think this is what the person is after, rather than winning the case. Good luck OP.

But it's the SCC, spiralling costs won't be an issue here.

I agree on a balance of probability that the OP should fight this as stated, and along with others remain open to further collaboration to help them.

I was not of this opinion right the way through, but have stated my reasons constantly.

I don't know what SCC means to be honest, or how any of this works, that's exactly why I'd be scared and be the kind of person that might pay up, even more so when it's someone with a history of violence, just to get rid of the problem. I'm glad the OP is standing firm and hopes he wins the case.

CKhalvashi

SavingPennies_2 said:

CKhalvashi said:

SavingPennies_2 said:

hazyjo said:

CKhalvashi said:

hazyjo said:

CKhalvashi said:

hazyjo said:

Have a really good Google for similar stories. Think it's already been said, but I'm sure he's prob done this before and targeted you due to your ad saying about checks.

What a nasty human being.

But on the basis of everything we've seen here, I don't believe OP has been unreasonable in their requests to the lodger given their full circumstances and the clarity in the advert.

However much I've picked on specific contract terms, OP has acted reasonably in these dealings. I find it difficult to see where the lodger feels they'd win in this case.

Absolutely agree, hence my post. They're probably hoping for an out of court settlement. Was hoping people in similar positions might be able to help, or could be used against this conman.

From my experience based on what we have seen, I would attempt to defend in full. I have stated most of my reasons for this and am open to discuss with the OP any other position they may wish to take.

My professional knowledge may be a bit rusty and not from these exact circumstances, but I firmly believe it would be unjust for OP to have to pay anything further than a week of rent (and even then I'm not sure they should pay that, just that it would be a maximum) on the basis of the information posted here.

I still agree.

To clarify, the lodger is a chancer and the OP should fight this all the way and not offer to pay a penny.

What I was also saying is that he's probably done this before. It may be helpful for the OP to try to find these people.

I agree, I think a lot of people in this situation would be scared (of spiralling costs, getting into a legal dispute or even of the person himself) and would just pay up to get rid of the problem. I think this is what the person is after, rather than winning the case. Good luck OP.

But it's the SCC, spiralling costs won't be an issue here.

I agree on a balance of probability that the OP should fight this as stated, and along with others remain open to further collaboration to help them.

I was not of this opinion right the way through, but have stated my reasons constantly.

I don't know what SCC means to be honest, or how any of this works, that's exactly why I'd be scared and be the kind of person that might pay up, even more so when it's someone with a history of violence, just to get rid of the problem. I'm glad the OP is standing firm and hopes he wins the case.

SCC = Small Claims Court.

I agree with you on the other point.

GDB2222

themastergoose said:

GDB2222 said:

themastergoose said:

Quick update if ppl are still following this. He’s declined mediation so it’s going to a full hearing at some date at the county court.

I can’t gauge whether he’s being serious and is going to attend and attempt a defence, or he’s spend the money and just longing this out to annoy me for whatever reason? I guess I’ll soon find out.

Given that you find these proceedings annoying, the obvious course would be to try to settle the matter. My understanding is that you have made no attempt to do so. 

Tactically, he’s right to refuse mediation, as it only works if both parties are prepared to settle.

Why would I try and settle the matter with the criminal? He's asking for £5651.91 and I'm not negotiating anything above £0.00. I requested mediation, he refused it.

Both parties don't need to agree a settlement figure because I'm not giving him a penny and would have drove that point home very clearly and explained why his claim has zero weight behind it. Paying him anything towards all of this would imply I accept his claim and was at fault. That's not happening.

That attitude is absolutely fine, but it has a cost in terms of your annoyance and time, which you have already acknowledged.  Personally, I’d at least have tried to settle. 

HampshireH

GDB2222 said:

themastergoose said:

GDB2222 said:

themastergoose said:

Quick update if ppl are still following this. He’s declined mediation so it’s going to a full hearing at some date at the county court.

I can’t gauge whether he’s being serious and is going to attend and attempt a defence, or he’s spend the money and just longing this out to annoy me for whatever reason? I guess I’ll soon find out.

Given that you find these proceedings annoying, the obvious course would be to try to settle the matter. My understanding is that you have made no attempt to do so. 

Tactically, he’s right to refuse mediation, as it only works if both parties are prepared to settle.

Why would I try and settle the matter with the criminal? He's asking for £5651.91 and I'm not negotiating anything above £0.00. I requested mediation, he refused it.

Both parties don't need to agree a settlement figure because I'm not giving him a penny and would have drove that point home very clearly and explained why his claim has zero weight behind it. Paying him anything towards all of this would imply I accept his claim and was at fault. That's not happening.

That attitude is absolutely fine, but it has a cost in terms of your annoyance and time, which you have already acknowledged.  Personally, I’d at least have tried to settle. 

I think sometimes you got to stand your ground and maintain your principles.

Might be time consuming but anything less is like admitting fault

seven-day-weekend

Just a comment from me that may have been covered earlier (I have only read the first and the last few pages) - I would assume 'all inclusive' meant precisely that, everything included.  If it was just bills it should say 'bills included'.

When I used to have lodgers I used to advertise it as ' most bills included, but telephone excluded' and they were not allowed to use the landline other than in an emergency. 

However, this particular lodger seems most vindictive and may even have set out to create this particular scenario.  I hope it all works out for the OP.

FreeBear

seven-day-weekend said: Just a comment from me that may have been covered earlier (I have only read the first and the last few pages) - I would assume 'all inclusive' meant precisely that, everything included.  If it was just bills it should say 'bills included'.

I refer our learned friend to this post from the OP - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78948418/#Comment_78948418 - Advert clearly stated "Fully furnished and inclusive of all bills". No mention of food, toiletries or other services. Also stated "no unspent convictions" at the bottom of the advert.

Slinky

FreeBear said:

seven-day-weekend said: Just a comment from me that may have been covered earlier (I have only read the first and the last few pages) - I would assume 'all inclusive' meant precisely that, everything included.  If it was just bills it should say 'bills included'.

I refer our learned friend to this post from the OP - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78948418/#Comment_78948418 - Advert clearly stated "Fully furnished and inclusive of all bills". No mention of food, toiletries or other services. Also stated "no unspent convictions" at the bottom of the advert.

This will come down to the court's opinion on what somebody might reasonably expect the word bills to mean. 

The lodger certainly sounds several currants short of a fruitcake.