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

GDB2222

Sorry it’s worked out so badly for the OP.

Gavin83

Sorry this was the outcome OP. I can totally understand why you wouldn’t wish to appeal but at the same time I think this is the wrong outcome.

Maybe your mistake was saying you evicted him due to his criminal record. Should have stated it was for the aggression and it left you feeling vulnerable and unsafe in your own home. Finding out about the criminal record was just a coincidence….

CKhalvashi

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. 

I'm also struggling to understand the rationale behind this part.

You seem to have had the judge of nightmares here, but after deliberating this in my head I can only take the view any additional rent payable in another property may have at worst (for OP) been claimable, except with the lodger moving back into their parents property that wouldn't be applicable in this case. The difference in that case couldn't reasonably have been any more than about £50/month, which doesn't equate to the sums here.

I did pick at the 6 months part of the contract (and that will need to be changed for any future agreements) but don't feel that the judge has interpreted this correctly with the lodger being an excluded occupier and not actually having paid this money in the first place.

As mentioned above, it may be worth asking your employer to pay (at least part of) this, as they seem to be the one who has got you into a lot of this situation. I agree that appealing may be risky, but also don't believe the outcome is just.

I'd also love to know if he's done this before.

doodling

Hi,

So far as I am aware, unless the criminal convictions were spent (were they, my recollection was that they are relatively recent?) then yes, you absolutely can hold them against someone.

If the convictions were not spent then the judgement is likely to be wrong and I would be seeking legal advice.

JuanBallOfWimbledon

This is really surprising to me. I have a colleague who has lodgers (only one at a time, but he’s had several). He uses a website to find them, I don’t know which site off the top of my head, but from what he’s told me, they recommend doing a basic background check to check for unspent convictions on all prospective lodgers. My understanding is that their advised limitations are that it can’t be a full DBS (which should only be done by employers), you have their permission, and you foot the bill. If you can’t then use this information in your decision making, then why is it recommended by these sites? 

This is 100% anecdotal, I’m not certain on any of it, but it’s been the subject of several discussions between he and I (no details of course, simply ‘I’m just waiting on a check coming back’ and ‘such and such website advise I do this but it can take ages’ type conversations). 

It seems wrong that, for example, a woman living alone can’t use a conviction for a sex crime as a reason not to share a house with someone.

user1977

JuanBallOfWimbledon said:

This is really surprising to me. I have a colleague who has lodgers (only one at a time, but he’s had several). He uses a website to find them, I don’t know which site off the top of my head, but from what he’s told me, they recommend doing a basic background check to check for unspent convictions on all prospective lodgers. My understanding is that their advised limitations are that it can’t be a full DBS (which should only be done by employers), you have their permission, and you foot the bill. If you can’t then use this information in your decision making, then why is it recommended by these sites? 

This is 100% anecdotal, I’m not certain on any of it, but it’s been the subject of several discussions between he and I (no details of course, simply ‘I’m just waiting on a check coming back’ and ‘such and such website advise I do this but it can take ages’ type conversations). 

It seems wrong that, for example, a woman living alone can’t use a conviction for a sex crime as a reason not to share a house with someone.

I think that would have been fine if the OP had awaited the result of the check before allowing the lodger to move in - their problem appears to have been allowing the tenancy to start, and then evicting them once the result came in.

JReacher1

Bad news OP. Think you were hard done by but I would be tempted to pay the money and not appeal. You don’t want to throw more money away on this so personally I would just write this off and treat it as a lesson learnt for the future. 

sammyjammy

doodling said:

Hi,

So far as I am aware, unless the criminal convictions were spent (were they, my recollection was that they are relatively recent?) then yes, you absolutely can hold them against someone.

If the convictions were not spent then the judgement is likely to be wrong and I would be seeking legal advice.

Its the fact that the OP was living in the same house as this guy, surely that gives them a choice as to whether they want someone with criminal convictions!  The law is an !!!!!!!

CasaCroft8

I feel gutted for you. Hopefully this will be an end to it.

GrumpyDil

Looking at the original post I'm assuming that at least some of those convictions were not spent.

I also can't find anything that says unspent convictions cannot be considered in terms of accepting a lodger into your house.

Problem is was it made clear that the convictions were unspent during the hearing and were for serious crimes?

That said might be best to swallow the bitter pill, move on and never offer a lodger a contract with more than a one week notice period.