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

CKhalvashi

bouicca21 said:

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

That's what the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is for, in the same way that credit checks will go back only 6 years.

There were criminal offences here that will never be spent.

TBagpuss

OP, sorry to hear the outcome.

Regarding the criminal convictions, it would be very interested (if you have the energy) to clarify the specific explanation the Judge gave .

I assume that it is due to the fact that your contract didn't explicitly say that you could end the agreement early if they turned out to have lied / not disclosed convictions, rather than that you could not require a  dbs check as a condition of entering into the agreement in the first place? 

Normally, when someone is claiming a sum of money they re expected to mitigate their losses so I would have thought it would have been possible for you to argue that they should only be entitle to the difference between what they would have paid you, and what they had actually paid in rent for the relevant period , i.e. the amount by which they were out of pocket and needed in order to put them back in the financial position they would have been in had they not breached the agreement,  but perhaps you didn't make that argument?  

breaking_free

@themastergoose I am so sorry to hear this outcome. As someone else suggested you could sell your story to recoup some of your losses and out this bar steward at the same time (it ain't libel if it's factual!). This site might help https://www.talktothepress.co.uk/sell-a-story-to-thats-life-magazine/

Some of the other posters have made really good points that you might use in your story: "I didn't feel safe with this lodger, he lied but it turned out the law was on his side...etc". 

EDIT: I thought the OP was female so I've removed my comment based on that. Having re-read the original lodger advertisment the OP is a 31 year old male. I do wonder if the judge would have been more sympathetic towards a woman turfing out a violent offender? Then again, maybe not this judge.

Murphybear

I’m tempted to quote from Dickens

 If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a !!!!!!–a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience–by experience.” ~ Oliver Twist

Skiddaw1

That's apalling OP. I can understand why you're not going to appeal but I think it's a terribly unfair outcome. Your story would put anyone off getting a lodger wouldn't it? So sorry.

[Deleted User]

Being a landlord is full of pitfalls. This verdict shows a high level of protection for tenants as will often be the case. Landlord is protected by waiting for vetting but didnt wait. Still in human terms it is unpleasant to be lied to.

Ms_Chocaholic

Thanks for the update but gutted for you x

GrumpyDil

[Deleted User] said:

Being a landlord is full of pitfalls. This verdict shows a high level of protection for tenants as will often be the case. Landlord is protected by waiting for vetting but didnt wait. Still in human terms it is unpleasant to be lied to.

Except in this case he was a lodger and not a tenant. The law treats them very differently. 

NameUnavailable

As mentioned already, the issue here appears to be the fact that the OP allowed the lodger to move in before the checks had come back, so a contract had already been formed. The judgment is (partly) that the OP cannot later evict someone because they have criminal convictions.

The OP's mistake was letting them move in, and the terms of the agreement drawn up were not enforceable.

Expensive lesson and it must be galling when they thought they were being fair in allowing the lodger in only to find out later that they had lied.

OTOH maybe a bigger bullet has been dodged!

TheJP

Not a nice scenario at all and I'm sorry the OP now has a hefty bill to pay. However, i would ask if the OP asked about the spent conviction past, what was it, time spent etc. Could it have been resolved differently, an amicable split of agreement?