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

pinkshoes

themastergoose said:

So this was because the original agreement ran for 6 months, but I stated it was dependent on clean credit and criminal checks. I ended the agreement because of his criminal record which I am NOT allowed to hold against him or use as grounds for eviction.

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.

That's horrific! Sorry you ended up having to pay out, but on the plus side it was less than he was originally demanding.

To recoup the sum of money that he has scammed you out of, I would almost be tempted to go to the papers and sell the story to cover the loss! It would at least prevent others ever having to be scammed by such dishonest people!

I also think it's really important that anyone else local who offers lodgings are aware of his nasty tactics! 

EDIT: I still don't understand why he was awarded 5 months rent, as he would have been paying that to you!? Did the judge mis-understand as it seems more like you refused to live with him and thus didn't pay for 5 months!?

GrumpyDil

pinkshoes said:

themastergoose said:

So this was because the original agreement ran for 6 months, but I stated it was dependent on clean credit and criminal checks. I ended the agreement because of his criminal record which I am NOT allowed to hold against him or use as grounds for eviction.

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.

EDIT: I still don't understand why he was awarded 5 months rent, as he would have been paying that to you!? Did the judge mis-understand as it seems more like you refused to live with him and thus didn't pay for 5 months!?

Yup. I'm struggling with the logic here as he has been paid money to compensate him for not having spent money. It feels like the judge was really punishing OP rather than compensating the ex lodger for an actual loss. Very unfair in my view and I suspect something different judges would not have given. 

Mimi123456

themastergoose said:

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.

Argh. So unfair. 

But makes sense that at this point you want to just cut your losses, accept the outcome and pay. Especially if it could cost you a job.

I’m sorry.

bouicca21

Ouch!  I don’t understand the ban on eviction - for me that works for a tenant on an AST but he was a lodger, and I thought a lodger could be asked to leave at any time for any reason.

themastergoose

GrumpyDil said:

pinkshoes said:

themastergoose said:

So this was because the original agreement ran for 6 months, but I stated it was dependent on clean credit and criminal checks. I ended the agreement because of his criminal record which I am NOT allowed to hold against him or use as grounds for eviction.

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.

EDIT: I still don't understand why he was awarded 5 months rent, as he would have been paying that to you!? Did the judge mis-understand as it seems more like you refused to live with him and thus didn't pay for 5 months!?

Yup. I'm struggling with the logic here as he has been paid money to compensate him for not having spent money. It feels like the judge was really punishing OP rather than compensating the ex lodger for an actual loss. Very unfair in my view and I suspect something different judges would not have given. 

Yep, that's my take on it as well. The judge bang on a few times about rehabilitation of offenders. He said a landlord can't apply prejudice to someone's past when they're looking for a home. I mean, I've been a renter in the past and a letting agent has never once asked me if I have a criminal record...?

canaldumidi

bouicca21 said:

Ouch!  I don’t understand the ban on eviction - for me that works for a tenant on an AST but he was a lodger, and I thought a lodger could be asked to leave at any time for any reason.

Yes, that's the position so far as statutory protection of tenants is concerned.

Unfortunately the OP gave the lodger a contract, with a 6 month term. So under contract law the lodger was entitled to 6 months.

That sets aside the issue of the lodger's dishonesty regarding declaration of his criminal record, which the judge apparantly discounted.

Slithery

bouicca21 said:

Ouch!  I don’t understand the ban on eviction - for me that works for a tenant on an AST but he was a lodger, and I thought a lodger could be asked to leave at any time for any reason.

A lodger has to be given the notice specified in the contract, but there is no minimum as to the length of time that can be written in said contract.

steve866

Thanks for coming back and updating the thread OP, sorry this happened to you. It just goes to show that what is deemed as 'right' or moral isn't always reflected in the legal system. There was a lot of people in this thread stating that there was 'no way' the tenant would be successful in his claim...

GDB2222

bouicca21 said:

Ouch!  I don’t understand the ban on eviction - for me that works for a tenant on an AST but he was a lodger, and I thought a lodger could be asked to leave at any time for any reason.

The lodger had a six months contract, so, yes, he could be asked to leave for any reason after the six months.

bouicca21

If a landlord can’t apply prejudice to someone’s past does that make credit checks illegal?  Just taking the argument to extremes …