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
-
youth_leader said:I hope the OP is OK. I was playing with the idea of a lodger, definitely won't be following it up now.If you give up any ideas you have based on a single internet/forum / newspaper / TV documentary horror story, you'll never do anything in life.Buy a house? Whoa! Watch out!Start a relationship? With all those romance scammers out there?Shop on the internet.....?Book a dream holiday.....?Very few people post about their successful lodgers/housemates whatever - we only hear the horror stories.....
9 -
youth_leader said:I hope the OP is OK. I was playing with the idea of a lodger, definitely won't be following it up now.
0 -
Sorry I'm a little late updating this, but the conclusion from court was a little complicated. I'll outline each point of his case below, and the outcome:
- Claim: Property is a shared ownership, so he's entitled to a tenancy. Seeking £250 in legal costs, £3 land registry fee, £380.91 in rent paid so far due to the contract offered being illegal. Total: £633.91
- Outcome: Legal costs of £250 rejected, as the judge wouldn't honour awarding his legal expense in a civil case. Rent paid of £380.91 was upheld. He was told the purchase status/finances of the property don't automatically entitle any occupier to an AST. It was discussed with the next point however...
- Claim: Signed a 6 month minimum agreement, and suitable notice wasn't given for eviction. Seeking 5 months and 1 week's rent as compensation. Total: £2876.92
- Outcome: After much contention, this was upheld along with the above mentioned £380.91. The very short version of this result was because the judge stated the primary reason for eviction was due to his undisclosed criminal past. This is NOT allowed to be held against anyone when they are looking for a home, and carried far more weight behind it rather than the fact the ex-lodger also refused to pay any further rent once I'd uncovered the criminal record. Interest was added to this at 8%, backdated.
- Claim: Landlord failed to place the deposit in a recognised protection scheme. Seeking £1650.
- Outcome: Fully rejected, and the judge reminded the ex-lodger that I wasn't under any obligation to protect it as he's not on an AST.
- Claim: The property was marketed as all inclusive, but the landlord in fact has lot's of exclusions. Seeking £37.
- Outcome: Fully rejected. Very little was said on the matter other than "the landlord has provided what is legally required".
- Claim: Filing fee of £455.
- Outcome: Upheld. Interest was added to this at 8%, backdated.
Total due out of my pocket to the ex-lodger: £3868.03. To be paid to the court within 14 days or a CCJ is issued. I was reminded I have a right to appeal, but it doesn't delay the 14 days in which the payment needs to be made. Rather (as far as I've understood) if an appeal is lodged the court holds the money in the interim, but will still issue a CCJ and later rescind it if necessary. Seems counterproductive.
Doubt I'll be appealing this as it will take more than 14 days to get the matter heard. A CCJ is vastly more damaging if issued, as I'd loose my job.
The ex-lodger, mostly won. He played the victim card very well.I've sold my signature spot as an NFT.28 -
Ouch. That's not good. Do you have more detail around the rent claimed as compensation as I really don't understand how you can be required to 'compensate' someone in such a way as to pay them compensation for a loss they have not incurred?6
-
themastergoose said:Sorry I'm a little late updating this, but the conclusion from court was a little complicated. I'll outline each point of his case below, and the outcome:
- Claim: Property is a shared ownership, so he's entitled to a tenancy. Seeking £250 in legal costs, £3 land registry fee, £380.91 in rent paid so far due to the contract offered being illegal. Total: £633.91
- Outcome: Legal costs of £250 rejected, as the judge wouldn't honour awarding his legal expense in a civil case. Rent paid of £380.91 was upheld. He was told the purchase status/finances of the property don't automatically entitle any occupier to an AST. It was discussed with the next point however...
- Claim: Signed a 6 month minimum agreement, and suitable notice wasn't given for eviction. Seeking 5 months and 1 week's rent as compensation. Total: £2876.92
- Outcome: After much contention, this was upheld along with the above mentioned £380.91. The very short version of this result was because the judge stated the primary reason for eviction was due to his undisclosed criminal past. This is NOT allowed to be held against anyone when they are looking for a home, and carried far more weight behind it rather than the fact the ex-lodger also refused to pay any further rent once I'd uncovered the criminal record. Interest was added to this at 8%, backdated.
- Claim: Landlord failed to place the deposit in a recognised protection scheme. Seeking £1650.
- Outcome: Fully rejected, and the judge reminded the ex-lodger that I wasn't under any obligation to protect it as he's not on an AST.
- Claim: The property was marketed as all inclusive, but the landlord in fact has lot's of exclusions. Seeking £37.
- Outcome: Fully rejected. Very little was said on the matter other than "the landlord has provided what is legally required".
- Claim: Filing fee of £455.
- Outcome: Upheld. Interest was added to this at 8%, backdated.
Total due out of my pocket to the ex-lodger: £3868.03. To be paid to the court within 14 days or a CCJ is issued. I was reminded I have a right to appeal, but it doesn't delay the 14 days in which the payment needs to be made. Rather (as far as I've understood) if an appeal is lodged the court holds the money in the interim, but will still issue a CCJ and later rescind it if necessary. Seems counterproductive.
Doubt I'll be appealing this as it will take more than 14 days to get the matter heard. A CCJ is vastly more damaging if issued, as I'd loose my job.
The ex-lodger, mostly won. He played the victim card very well.
next time get ALL checks back before allowing them to move in.
Debt £7976 | Savings £350Aims: Buy first home 2026-8. £20k deposit0 -
Terrible shame this is the outcome, hopefully others will learn valuable lessons on how to protect themselves from similar underhand tactics.
6 -
Deepest sympathies.I guess I can understand how the judge reached these conclusions, but it just .... feels unfair. At least based on everything you've explained.What can one say? Sadly you've learned some hard lessons, and if you dip your toe into the lodger world again doubtles you'll be very cautious .....18
-
GrumpyDil said:Ouch. That's not good. Do you have more detail around the rent claimed as compensation as I really don't understand how you can be required to 'compensate' someone in such a way as to pay them compensation for a loss they have not incurred?
The ex-lodger was fully entitled to stay for the minimum agreed duration and would have expected as such. His personal financial status facing eviction so soon after moving apparently caused severe distress and hardship, as he was being evicted for a reason that's not allowed to be held against someone. He's "served his time" and needs to be allowed to move on, or some other such crap.I've sold my signature spot as an NFT.1 -
ayupmeduck said:themastergoose said:Sorry I'm a little late updating this, but the conclusion from court was a little complicated. I'll outline each point of his case below, and the outcome:
- Claim: Property is a shared ownership, so he's entitled to a tenancy. Seeking £250 in legal costs, £3 land registry fee, £380.91 in rent paid so far due to the contract offered being illegal. Total: £633.91
- Outcome: Legal costs of £250 rejected, as the judge wouldn't honour awarding his legal expense in a civil case. Rent paid of £380.91 was upheld. He was told the purchase status/finances of the property don't automatically entitle any occupier to an AST. It was discussed with the next point however...
- Claim: Signed a 6 month minimum agreement, and suitable notice wasn't given for eviction. Seeking 5 months and 1 week's rent as compensation. Total: £2876.92
- Outcome: After much contention, this was upheld along with the above mentioned £380.91. The very short version of this result was because the judge stated the primary reason for eviction was due to his undisclosed criminal past. This is NOT allowed to be held against anyone when they are looking for a home, and carried far more weight behind it rather than the fact the ex-lodger also refused to pay any further rent once I'd uncovered the criminal record. Interest was added to this at 8%, backdated.
- Claim: Landlord failed to place the deposit in a recognised protection scheme. Seeking £1650.
- Outcome: Fully rejected, and the judge reminded the ex-lodger that I wasn't under any obligation to protect it as he's not on an AST.
- Claim: The property was marketed as all inclusive, but the landlord in fact has lot's of exclusions. Seeking £37.
- Outcome: Fully rejected. Very little was said on the matter other than "the landlord has provided what is legally required".
- Claim: Filing fee of £455.
- Outcome: Upheld. Interest was added to this at 8%, backdated.
Total due out of my pocket to the ex-lodger: £3868.03. To be paid to the court within 14 days or a CCJ is issued. I was reminded I have a right to appeal, but it doesn't delay the 14 days in which the payment needs to be made. Rather (as far as I've understood) if an appeal is lodged the court holds the money in the interim, but will still issue a CCJ and later rescind it if necessary. Seems counterproductive.
Doubt I'll be appealing this as it will take more than 14 days to get the matter heard. A CCJ is vastly more damaging if issued, as I'd loose my job.
The ex-lodger, mostly won. He played the victim card very well.
next time get ALL checks back before allowing them to move in.2 -
I think I remember that your work got you into this mess? I would be firmly asking for their support...Did the judge quote any legislation about not being able to hold his criminal record against him?But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,Had the whole of their cash in his care.
Lewis Carroll4
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
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards