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

Chris_English

He’s confused about his status, he was a lodger, not a tenant, and he chose to leave himself anyway.

Ignore.

canaldumidi

Change the locks and ignore the letter. No point replying, and starting a to/fro argument over legal distinctions over lodger/tenant or deposit registration/non registration etc

Wait to see if he's foolish and ignorant enough to start court action. If he is, come back and we'll sugest wording for your defense which is pretty strong.

GDB2222

He does have some sort of argument over the toiletries, towels, etc. It’s crazy, in my view, to advertise the room as all inclusive, as it’s far too vague. 

I also don’t think you should have a contract that requires the lodger to satisfy a certain test, unless the contract also specifies what happens if he fails. It’s hard to see what losses he has suffered if he has simply moved back home with mum, though. His calculation is fanciful.

The court fee and interest are correct, providing he wins his case.

If this ever does go to court, the judge will expect you to have responded to the letter before action. It’s part of the pre action protocol. So, it’s better to respond, explaining why you think he has no case. 

Rosa_Damascena

GDB2222 said:

He does have some sort of argument over the toiletries, towels, etc. It’s crazy, in my view, to advertise the room as all inclusive, as it’s far too vague. 

I also don’t think you should have a contract that requires the lodger to satisfy a certain test, unless the contract also specifies what happens if he fails. It’s hard to see what losses he has suffered if he has simply moved back home with mum, though. His calculation is fanciful.

The court fee and interest are correct, providing he wins his case.

If this ever does go to court, the judge will expect you to have responded to the letter before action. It’s part of the pre action protocol. So, it’s better to respond, explaining why you think he has no case. 

Why feed the beast? It's a waste of your energy and will make your lodger think you give a damn.

GDB2222

Rosa_Damascena said:

GDB2222 said:

He does have some sort of argument over the toiletries, towels, etc. It’s crazy, in my view, to advertise the room as all inclusive, as it’s far too vague. 

I also don’t think you should have a contract that requires the lodger to satisfy a certain test, unless the contract also specifies what happens if he fails. It’s hard to see what losses he has suffered if he has simply moved back home with mum, though. His calculation is fanciful.

The court fee and interest are correct, providing he wins his case.

If this ever does go to court, the judge will expect you to have responded to the letter before action. It’s part of the pre action protocol. So, it’s better to respond, explaining why you think he has no case. 

Why feed the beast? It's a waste of your energy and will make your lodger think you give a damn.

It’s absolutely fine to ignore the letter provided you are 100% certain that this is all hot air, and he won’t issue proceedings. 

canaldumidi

Rosa_Damascena said

Why feed the beast? It's a waste of your energy and will make your lodger think you give a damn.

.............................................................

GDB2222

canaldumidi said:

Rosa_Damascena said

Why feed the beast? It's a waste of your energy and will make your lodger think you give a damn.

.............................................................

I’ve answered that. If it goes to court, you’ll be quizzed about why you ignored the LBA. It’s a pointless risk. A brief reply is all that is required.

CKhalvashi

IamWood said:

themastergoose said:

user1977 said:

Yes.

Not sure what the point was of getting a background check after he had already moved in?

Background check was put in the day before the keys were handed over. It often takes a week or two for them to come back. It was written in the agreement which he signed that moving in was conditional to the checks coming back as disclosed. Not to dissimilar to some companies I have work for in the past. You'll honestly disclose anything and start the job, but know full well they can fire you if the check comes back a few weeks later and you'd lied about something.

Well, it works differently. It is an organization against a person. Taking on a lodger is just you against a huge guy who may care nothing. Lessons to learn.

Who wants a lodger who is unemployed and in debt.

I'm very aware that in the last few years (due to temporary ill health) that if I didn't have sufficient capital reserves, my own company and more importantly an amazing team backing that company that I could have been in this position.

Despite a lodger being largely unprotected, if the lodger hasn't been violent or threatening to OP, they should be given a chance, after all most people deserve somewhere to live.

I equally don't believe the debts are OP's concern as long as the rent is coming and bailiffs etc aren't constantly at the door.

CKhalvashi

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

pjcox2005 said:

Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.

My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.

On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.

Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.

Best of luck. 

Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.

A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.

I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.

I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.

Andthen07

CKhalvashi said:

Giddypip said:

themastergoose said:

pjcox2005 said:

Preface it with no experience in this area but stumbled across thread.

My reaction would be to laugh, acknowledge letter and say happy to meet in court. Call the bluff and leave it as that.

On points 2) and 3) these fall flat straight away. My understanding is that lodgers aren't within the tenancy protection rules (see link here Lodgers - Shelter England - assumption you are in England so apologies if mentioned elsewhere you're not) and no judge is going to have the view that a basic lodger would have food, washing and anything else they want to be included.

Point 1) is going to fail I'd expect particularly given the failure to disclose background. Lodgers have less protection on eviction but you would want to check terms within the 6 month agreement you got them to sign. I presume they'd be a clause in there that you can evict with reduced notice.

Best of luck. 

Sound's reasonable. I'm aware lodger deposits don't have to go into a protected scheme, maybe he's not by the sounds of it. I'll reply simply stating that I'd be happy to let it go through the court process, as I don't think he's got any leg to stand on with this?

I wouldn't bother replying at all.

This is the worst advice that could be given for a civil claim, as if he's proven right, this would negate any claim against this.

A reply, however brief and to the point, would be essential to negate any potential claim at the pre-court stage, as long as it makes the actual rights clear.

I'm unsure, even with the lodger leaving, why OP as a businessperson in this case (as whatever OP may feel, this was a business transaction on their part) feels it's correct to not make checks before signing a contract, making them after, and then from what I can see pressuring the lodger to leave. The checks made may or may not be legal, therefore furthering the claim.

I am of the opinion here that something is owed, which is somewhere between the £0 that OP believes and the 5 months the lodger is claiming for.

Absolute 100% nonsense, horse manure.