Not revealing one child on tenancy
Discussion
Someone at work has 4 children one of them is a baby and he has just rented a house 3 bed and told them he only he 3 older children as he tried to rent through the agent before when he has 3 and when he viewed this house they assumed so he didn't want to lose it on the basis he has had another baby apparently.
If he gets the tenancy on the basis of 3-7 years old but they find out or he tells them he has a baby as well what could happen?
If he gets the tenancy on the basis of 3-7 years old but they find out or he tells them he has a baby as well what could happen?
He had problems getting a 3 bed as he was up against families with less kids and couples. He lost a 3 bed as the landlord didn't want more than two kids.
he has signed an only vetting form stating he has 3 kids and he can be done for fraud if it terms out to be false and is now worried.
Since he has permission to have 3 kids can't see one baby would make any difference if he pays his money i assume they can't kick him out in the assured period.
he has signed an only vetting form stating he has 3 kids and he can be done for fraud if it terms out to be false and is now worried.
Since he has permission to have 3 kids can't see one baby would make any difference if he pays his money i assume they can't kick him out in the assured period.
98elise said:
Can you clarify why one extra child would be a problem? Its not over populating the house.
Children don't normally go on a tenancy agreement AFIK.
Just families of 4 kids are not the norm in our neck of the woods and he has had problems, he ending up paying more rent as the landlord had 5 people want it after two days on the market. So he offered more pasted vetting but just left it as having 3- 7yrs and no baby.Children don't normally go on a tenancy agreement AFIK.
jbsportstech said:
He had problems getting a 3 bed as he was up against families with less kids and couples. He lost a 3 bed as the landlord didn't want more than two kids.
he has signed an only vetting form stating he has 3 kids and he can be done for fraud if it terms out to be false and is now worried.
Since he has permission to have 3 kids can't see one baby would make any difference if he pays his money i assume they can't kick him out in the assured period.
Technically its fraud, but its hard enough to get a fraud charge when somone has covered up serious stuff. he has signed an only vetting form stating he has 3 kids and he can be done for fraud if it terms out to be false and is now worried.
Since he has permission to have 3 kids can't see one baby would make any difference if he pays his money i assume they can't kick him out in the assured period.
98elise said:
Technically its fraud, but its hard enough to get a fraud charge when somone has covered up serious stuff.
So if his tenancy allows children i can't see it could come back to bite him.Thats all he is worried as his vetting form stated that, however i don't think a baby when they declared the 3 yr old is a real fraud case.
he pays rent and he house is always very well kept can't see an issue.
Edited by jbsportstech on Monday 9th February 21:31
I cant believe he is worried about this. The landlord/agent can do f
k all if they find out he has 4 kids except refuse to renew the AST at the end of the contract.
All that talk of fraud is BS. The only people who could get done are the landlord/agent for Discrimination.
k all if they find out he has 4 kids except refuse to renew the AST at the end of the contract. All that talk of fraud is BS. The only people who could get done are the landlord/agent for Discrimination.
Edited by Eclassy on Monday 9th February 21:34
Edited by Eclassy on Tuesday 10th February 07:32
Eclassy said:
I cant believe he is worried about this. The landlord/agent can do fd all if they find out he has 4 kids except refuse to renew the AST at the end of the contract.
All that talk of fraud is BS. The only people who could get done are the landlord/agent for Discrimination.
On what grounds would the discrimination be then?d all if they find out he has 4 kids except refuse to renew the AST at the end of the contract. All that talk of fraud is BS. The only people who could get done are the landlord/agent for Discrimination.
Edited by Eclassy on Monday 9th February 21:34
not colour , not religion , not sexuality , not race
no discrimination at all IMO
Eclassy said:
I cant believe he is worried about this. The landlord/agent can do fd all if they find out he has 4 kids except refuse to renew the AST at the end of the contract.
All that talk of fraud is BS. The only people who could get done are the landlord/agent for Discrimination.
d all if they find out he has 4 kids except refuse to renew the AST at the end of the contract. All that talk of fraud is BS. The only people who could get done are the landlord/agent for Discrimination.
Edited by Eclassy on Monday 9th February 21:34
Eclassy said:
The landlord/agent can do fd all if they find out he has 4 kids except refuse to renew the AST at the end of the contract.
Thought you claimed to be a landlord? The AST doesn't need to be renewed - it'll go onto a statutory periodic automatically. To end it, even at the end of the fixed term, the landlord needs to serve notice. Which, if they find they've been lied to, they may well do.d all if they find out he has 4 kids except refuse to renew the AST at the end of the contract.dingg said:
On what grounds would the discrimination be then?
not colour , not religion , not sexuality , not race
no discrimination at all IMO
"Types of discriminationnot colour , not religion , not sexuality , not race
no discrimination at all IMO
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:
being pregnant or having a child"
Would the fact that the tenant has 4 children instead of 3 have made any difference to the outcome of his application for the house?
If yes = discrimination
If no = No fraud committed.
This will probably be different if one was applying for council housing. A prospective council tenant will be more likely to overstate the number of children he/she has so as to get a bigger house allocated.
A desperate person may claim to have 2 children instead of 4 to get a place (which will be smaller) quickly. The council may prosecute (very unlikely) in such a situation.
Edited by Eclassy on Tuesday 10th February 07:34
That sounds dubious to me eclassy. If the landlord had allowed 4 kids on the advert, upon finding out prospect had 3 kids and 1 in the oven, so to speak and then said no, maybe yes to discrimination. Even then I'm not sure. If landlord said max 3 kids and there's a fourth as a 9 month bump/baby, the landlord is well within his/her rights to not let the property.
OP the landlord may not care. If it was me though, that tiny fib would nake me thibk what else is the tenant hiding? Can they be trusted in the future? He might get a section 21.
OP the landlord may not care. If it was me though, that tiny fib would nake me thibk what else is the tenant hiding? Can they be trusted in the future? He might get a section 21.
what can the landlord do? I rented on the basis of no kids or pets and ended up with both moving in.....when that is spotted by the landlord they have two options - refuse to re-new the deal at contract time and lose a good tenant who pays and keeps the house great - or forget their stupid idea about no kids and pets.
Eclassy said:
dingg said:
On what grounds would the discrimination be then?
not colour , not religion , not sexuality , not race
no discrimination at all IMO
"Types of discriminationnot colour , not religion , not sexuality , not race
no discrimination at all IMO
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:
being pregnant or having a child"
Would the fact that the tenant has 4 children instead of 3 have made any difference to the outcome of his application for the house?
If yes = discrimination
If no = No fraud committed.
This will probably be different if one was applying for council housing. A prospective council tenant will be more likely to overstate the number of children he/she has so as to get a bigger house allocated.
A desperate person may claim to have 2 children instead of 4 to get a place (which will be smaller) quickly. The council may prosecute (very unlikely) in such a situation.
Edited by Eclassy on Tuesday 10th February 07:34
It's not discrimination and the LL doesn't need to wait until the end of the AST.
The LL, if bothered by this, would be taking action on the basis that the tenant provided false information. He would serve a Section 8 notice, ground 17. Two weeks notice is all that is required.
Eleven said:
PH legal advice at its finest.
It's not discrimination and the LL doesn't need to wait until the end of the AST.
The LL, if bothered by this, would be taking action on the basis that the tenant provided false information. He would serve a Section 8 notice, ground 17. Two weeks notice is all that is required.
LoLIt's not discrimination and the LL doesn't need to wait until the end of the AST.
The LL, if bothered by this, would be taking action on the basis that the tenant provided false information. He would serve a Section 8 notice, ground 17. Two weeks notice is all that is required.
It is obvious you know nothing about renting out houses.
Ground 17 can be used when permission for tenancy is based on a false statement knowingly made by a tenant. This will be a statement that affects the decision to rent.
This brings us back to the discrimination angle. Would a landlord have made a different decision on renting out his 3 bedroom house to this tenant based on the tenant having 4 children. If yes, would it have been reasonable(legal). The answer to that is NO.
If the landlord is stupid enough to waste his money and go the section 8 route using a discretionary ground (which will fail) then thats up to him.
It takes at least 6 months from serving notice to getting a tenant evicted when there is a strong case. The best the landlord in this situation can do is wait until the end of tenancy and not renew.
Eclassy said:
"Types of discrimination
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:
being pregnant or having a child"
Would the fact that the tenant has 4 children instead of 3 have made any difference to the outcome of his application for the house?
If yes = discrimination
If no = No fraud committed.
This will probably be different if one was applying for council housing. A prospective council tenant will be more likely to overstate the number of children he/she has so as to get a bigger house allocated.
A desperate person may claim to have 2 children instead of 4 to get a place (which will be smaller) quickly. The council may prosecute (very unlikely) in such a situation.
Oh dear - if only it were so simpleIt is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:
being pregnant or having a child"
Would the fact that the tenant has 4 children instead of 3 have made any difference to the outcome of his application for the house?
If yes = discrimination
If no = No fraud committed.
This will probably be different if one was applying for council housing. A prospective council tenant will be more likely to overstate the number of children he/she has so as to get a bigger house allocated.
A desperate person may claim to have 2 children instead of 4 to get a place (which will be smaller) quickly. The council may prosecute (very unlikely) in such a situation.
Edited by Eclassy on Tuesday 10th February 07:34
no discrimination in the OP's case
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff