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

themastergoose

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. 

Let me clarify - I disagree with the whole "everything's included" aspect. What he's hinging on is the advert stated "All inclusive bills". The agreement he read and signed simply states "includes all bills". He's saying because it doesn't specify utility bills he's got a case.

The problem I have with his interpretation of it is basically this: He can dirty as many bath towels as he likes for example - that not only I have to provide, it's up to me to wash them and keep him supplied. Same with bedding, like sheets, pillowcases etc. I'm not a live in maid and that's been made perfectly clear to him and he called me an *** **** because of it. On top of the fact he then thinks it's entirely acceptable to run off a list of things he wants be to keep replacing because he's either ate it or used it is a joke (Loo Rolls, Bathroom towels, shower gel, soap, toilet and surface cleaner, basic dried foods - pasta, rice etc, tea, coffee, milk, sugar). You guys get the idea.

You find me a landlord who's going to do this. I provide the room, make sure all bills and insurance is in place, furniture, make sure nothing in the house is broken/disrepair. I'm astounded people here believe landlords should provide everything else he's asking for also?

themastergoose

The bit that concerns me to answer some earlier questions is also the fact he is employed, and earns a decent salary. He can very easily afford to pay that filing fee and just take a roll of the dice.

The filing fee is about 1.5 days pay for him, that's all. 

emmajones1976

themastergoose said:

The bit that concerns me to answer some earlier questions is also the fact he is employed, and earns a decent salary. He can very easily afford to pay that filing fee and just take a roll of the dice.

The filing fee is about 1.5 days pay for him, that's all. 

Its all bluster. You know this, right?

Has he now left btw?

GDB2222

themastergoose said:

The bit that concerns me to answer some earlier questions is also the fact he is employed, and earns a decent salary. He can very easily afford to pay that filing fee and just take a roll of the dice.

The filing fee is about 1.5 days pay for him, that's all. 

It would be worse if he were on benefits, as he would not have to pay.

themastergoose

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.

Are you serious? The lodger WAS checked for everything bar background checking, and it clearly states that if anything differs from his disclosure when the report finally comes back he MAY have the agreement terminated.

The lodger wasn't pressured to leave. He lied, end of. I served notice because of it, and he chose to leave early and also collected his deposit back and un-used days he'd paid for.

The checks were not illegal neither. I'm amused everyone keeps on saying that they were.

CKhalvashi

Andthen07 said:

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. 

It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.

As I've stated, a 6 month contract was signed, it's highly possible that as a result of illegal searches being made on the lodget that contract was broken under pressure.

There may therefore be a claim, however taking this thread at face value and piecing together the rest, I'd go with there being a breach under pressure on your part.

Your lodger would have a reasonable right to privacy, which you have not respected, especially as I can see there have been no threats towards you and no expectation of such.

I am therefore still of the opinion that something between £0 and 5 months rent may be owed as a result of what's been implied here.

themastergoose

emmajones1976 said:

themastergoose said:

The bit that concerns me to answer some earlier questions is also the fact he is employed, and earns a decent salary. He can very easily afford to pay that filing fee and just take a roll of the dice.

The filing fee is about 1.5 days pay for him, that's all. 

Its all bluster. You know this, right?

Has he now left btw?

Yes, he left several days ahead of the notice period served. I returned his deposit and un-used days he'd paid for also on the same day he handed the keys back.

I'll happily call his bluff, but there's always that outside 1% that the judge will take his side...

user1977

I don't see what loss he could claim for though. Presumably even his "towel bundle" went with him?

CKhalvashi

themastergoose said:

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.

Are you serious? The lodger WAS checked for everything bar background checking, and it clearly states that if anything differs from his disclosure when the report finally comes back he MAY have the agreement terminated.

The lodger wasn't pressured to leave. He lied, end of. I served notice because of it, and he chose to leave early and also collected his deposit back and un-used days he'd paid for.

The checks were not illegal neither. I'm amused everyone keeps on saying that they were.

You would not have the right to effectively CRB check someone for the purpose of a tenancy agreement. These can only be used in certain circumstances. I cannot (and would not want to) effectively check all of my staff unless either a legal requirement states this must be done (which is applicable for some staff) or doing so would be both legal and make sense.

I have included the link below for companies, but if not, can you show in law where this would be necessary or proportionate for the (now broken) contract you hold with your lodger?
https://www.gov.uk/find-out-dbs-check

In short, yes, I am serious unless you have been threatened (which still wouldn't require this check, it would require a police call) or there is something regulated going on within the property that you have not mentioned in this thread.

As a court claim would take 1.5 days of salary to earn, I am still sure the money to you would have been forthcoming and therefore there is no issue with this, and withholding any threats, am sure there was no need for you to invade the privacy of your lodger beyond the fact there was not a danger to you and the rent could be paid.

Andthen07

CKhalvashi said:

Andthen07 said:

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. 

It's not me you'll need to convince of this, it's the courts.

As I've stated, a 6 month contract was signed, it's highly possible that as a result of illegal searches being made on the lodget that contract was broken under pressure.

There may therefore be a claim, however taking this thread at face value and piecing together the rest, I'd go with there being a breach under pressure on your part.

Your lodger would have a reasonable right to privacy, which you have not respected, especially as I can see there have been no threats towards you and no expectation of such.

I am therefore still of the opinion that something between £0 and 5 months rent may be owed as a result of what's been implied here.

Sounds like the sort of advice Rudy Guilani gave Trump after the 2020 elections.