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

JuanBallOfWimbledon

user1977 said:

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.

Yes, that’s the only explanation that makes any sense whatsoever to me. It was this part that I based my reply upon: 

‘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…’

But I think you must be correct. 

How terribly disappointing for the OP and how unfair this seems. Given this lodger’s confidence that his claim would succeed, even though the conditions of his contract (be they legal or otherwise) were made explicitly clear, and his speed at taking legal action, I personally find it hard to believe this is the first time he’s done this kind of thing. 

youth_leader

So very sorry to read this OP.  I hope you can publicise this, I agree that this person may well have done this before and there are many kind people like yourself who could also find themselves in this situation.  

Sistergold

user1977 said:

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.

From what the OP said about the judge, it seems you can not refuse to take in the lodger on grounds of a spent conviction. 

CKhalvashi

Sistergold said:

user1977 said:

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.

From what the OP said about the judge, it seems you can not refuse to take in the lodger on grounds of a spent conviction. 

I argued that to be the case before court papers were issued and OP didn't like this fact. That seems about right to me.

That doesn't exclude the fact though that the lodger is an excluded occupier with convictions that will never be spent however, which to me may change things. There is only very limited protection under the L&T Act in my interpretation, much more limited than the judge has given credit for.

On that point, OP decided that the legislation didn't apply to them at all, and again become stroppy when told he was wrong.

I wonder how much of that may have affected what the judge saw and the subsequent judgement issued, however again this doesn't negate that I believe an error in law has probably been made in relation to the largest part of the claim based on my reading and experience with the legislation in question.

Lavendyr

I don't think OP became "stroppy" at any point and have followed this thread with interest. I'm really sorry things turned out this way for you @themastergoose - I thought your advert was clearly put and expectations set. Wish you all the best OP. 

Sistergold

Sorry to hear of the outcome OP. Yes offenders need a chance but it should not mean that the rest of us who try to abide by the law should then not be allowed to choose who we live with as it becomes discrimination. It’s like when a burglar breaks into a house and in the struggle they die. The law seems to protect them and it will take a lot to defend that it was self defence. If the homeowner dies the “law seems not to mind”. 

This has been a very useful thread for most of us. Live and learn. Thank you

user1977

Sistergold said:

user1977 said:

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.

From what the OP said about the judge, it seems you can not refuse to take in the lodger on grounds of a spent conviction. 

Did the judge say anything about spent convictions? I thought in this case the convictions were very much unspent!

There's certainly no principle I'm aware of prohibiting you from discriminating against a (prospective) lodger on the basis of their criminal record - it isn't a protected characteristic.

spoovy

Am I not reading contradictory things here? That the lodgers convictions were not spent, yet his case was upheld because you can't discriminate based on spent convictions?

CKhalvashi

spoovy said:

Am I not reading contradictory things here? That the lodgers convictions were not spent, yet his case was upheld because you can't discriminate based on spent convictions?

The issue was that the lodger had moved in before the criminal checks came back, and when they did they weren't satisfactory to the OP. There were convictions involved that will never be spent due to their severity. The judge did not specify whether this would apply to spent, unspent or both convictions, however it looks like this particular judge feels that any criminal conviction cannot be held against someone in a housing situation. I personally feel that OP has more rights than given credit for, especially in the case of a a lodgers agreement, not a full tenancy agreement.

This has spurred a wider debate on whether spent convictions can be used against someone in this particular case, however in the case of unspent convictions due to living with others and their nature, there would likely be reasonable cause to say that the lodger should not have lived with OP in law, however this may not have been the case in a self-contained privately rented property, where OP would be liable for the damages the court has outlined along with potential criminal charges, and rightly so.

In short, other than a contract clause potentially not being as clear as it should have been (and I have picked on that, but then I pull contracts apart on a daily basis) and the lodger moving in before they ideally should have done for OP's legal protection, I am not sure what would warrant the judgement that has been made against OP in this case. I don't personally feel that even that warrants the judgement due to the high amount of the largest part involved, especially as OP had never seen this money.

It seems clear to me that the judge has overestimated the rights of lodgers in the Landlord and Tenant Act and there has been an error in law on this basis. It also seems clear to me that OP feels the risk of appealing this are too high for them.

To make my personal opinion on the lodger clear, I do believe they have a right to a place to live, but with convictions involving violence I do not necessarily believe that place should be shared with strangers. I do believe everyone should have a second chance and would likely have a different opinion based on the facts outlined here (going right back to the advert) if it was a single conviction multiple years ago. It isn't though and looks like there are repeat convictions of a similar nature over a span of time.

I also believe the lodger has potentially planned this from the outset, at least in part.