Discussion
Watched a couple of reality programs the other day and struggled to see how two similar (to me that is) crimes have such massive differences on sentences.
First one was “claimed and shamed” and had individuals sentenced to jail terms for knowingly committing fraud by dishonestly lodging bogus, or over inflated insurance claims. Fair enough and well deserved as they knew exactly what they were doing.
Second program was “nightmare tenants, scum landlords” and had individuals renting property, not paying the rent, then sub letting all of the rooms and actually making a living from it. Go to court and told to vacate, that’s it... absolutely no repercussions, they even had the neck to nick the furniture.
As far as I can see, they all knew what they were doing and how wrong it was, but the consequences of getting caught were so massively disproportionate.
First one was “claimed and shamed” and had individuals sentenced to jail terms for knowingly committing fraud by dishonestly lodging bogus, or over inflated insurance claims. Fair enough and well deserved as they knew exactly what they were doing.
Second program was “nightmare tenants, scum landlords” and had individuals renting property, not paying the rent, then sub letting all of the rooms and actually making a living from it. Go to court and told to vacate, that’s it... absolutely no repercussions, they even had the neck to nick the furniture.
As far as I can see, they all knew what they were doing and how wrong it was, but the consequences of getting caught were so massively disproportionate.
sherbertdip said:
I don't know what your problem is, totally different, first one is a criminal act i.e. Fraud, second one is civil case i.e. not paying enough rent.
As far as I'm concerned, not paying rent is theft. That may not be how the law sees it but in my opinion it should be. It's about time all these scumbags that think they can go round stealing thousands of pounds from landlords had their comeuppance.I'm with the OP on this one.
sherbertdip said:
I don't know what your problem is, totally different, first one is a criminal act i.e. Fraud, second one is civil case i.e. not paying enough rent.
Would nicking all the funiture not come under a criminal act? Or is a civil due to it being between tennent and landlord?stupidbutkeen said:
sherbertdip said:
I don't know what your problem is, totally different, first one is a criminal act i.e. Fraud, second one is civil case i.e. not paying enough rent.
Would nicking all the funiture not come under a criminal act? Or is a civil due to it being between tennent and landlord?stupidbutkeen said:
Would nicking all the funiture not come under a criminal act?
Quite possibly. However criminal charges are outside the scope of the civil court that orders the eviction. The landlord can report them to the police for theft if he wants to - but it would a separate process from evicting them from the flat. It's also possible that renting a flat having no intention of ever paying rent (as opposed to not paying the rent because you've lost your job, or blown this month's money on a three legged horse) could constitute an offence of dishonesty, but it would not be easy to prove except in the most blatant cases, and would require a separate process to the eviction proceedings to prosecute.
I can give you a real world example and the basis upon which I immediately determined that I would not operate in the criminal law system.
Mags court. Drink driver - single guy, benefits, no remorse, no regrets, sentenced to 100 hours community service. About an hour later another drink driver is up. Guy had a job that would sack him if he went to jail, had a wife, kids, had a residential place in rehab lined up. Got six weeks. I presume he lost his job, house, place in rehab etc. I very nearly cried myself to sleep that night and I most certainly did not sleep much.
Mags court. Drink driver - single guy, benefits, no remorse, no regrets, sentenced to 100 hours community service. About an hour later another drink driver is up. Guy had a job that would sack him if he went to jail, had a wife, kids, had a residential place in rehab lined up. Got six weeks. I presume he lost his job, house, place in rehab etc. I very nearly cried myself to sleep that night and I most certainly did not sleep much.
Aretnap said:
Quite possibly. However criminal charges are outside the scope of the civil court that orders the eviction. The landlord can report them to the police for theft if he wants to - but it would a separate process from evicting them from the flat.
It's also possible that renting a flat having no intention of ever paying rent (as opposed to not paying the rent because you've lost your job, or blown this month's money on a three legged horse) could constitute an offence of dishonesty, but it would not be easy to prove except in the most blatant cases, and would require a separate process to the eviction proceedings to prosecute.
This. It's also possible that renting a flat having no intention of ever paying rent (as opposed to not paying the rent because you've lost your job, or blown this month's money on a three legged horse) could constitute an offence of dishonesty, but it would not be easy to prove except in the most blatant cases, and would require a separate process to the eviction proceedings to prosecute.
An analogy would be fraudently writing out a cheque with a view to gain KNOWING there are no funds to meet it or that you intend to stop it and that it won't be honoured, that then becomes a criminal offence, but I wonder how many have been successfully prosecuted
un1corn said:
Our justice system is a joke and anyone who defends it is deluded.
Don't be ridiculous, the two scenarios in the OP, were completely different, one was a criminal offence of fraud and one was a civil dispute over an unpaid debt.Do you suggest the country would be a better place if Mr A and Mr B are having a disagreement over money and Mr A can call the Plod and have Mr B carted away. This is not the 3rd world during medieval times, get real
martinbiz said:
Don't be ridiculous, the two scenarios in the OP, were completely different, one was a criminal offence of fraud and one was a civil dispute over an unpaid debt.
No they're not, they are exactly the same. You can wrap them up in fancy words like 'criminal offense' and 'civil dispute' (and legally you're probably right) but in both cases the scumbags end up with thousands of pounds of someone else's money they are not entitled to. How is that different? NGee said:
martinbiz said:
Don't be ridiculous, the two scenarios in the OP, were completely different, one was a criminal offence of fraud and one was a civil dispute over an unpaid debt.
No they're not, they are exactly the same. You can wrap them up in fancy words like 'criminal offense' and 'civil dispute' (and legally you're probably right) but in both cases the scumbags end up with thousands of pounds of someone else's money they are not entitled to. How is that different? martinbiz said:
NGee said:
martinbiz said:
Don't be ridiculous, the two scenarios in the OP, were completely different, one was a criminal offence of fraud and one was a civil dispute over an unpaid debt.
No they're not, they are exactly the same. You can wrap them up in fancy words like 'criminal offense' and 'civil dispute' (and legally you're probably right) but in both cases the scumbags end up with thousands of pounds of someone else's money they are not entitled to. How is that different? NGee said:
No they're not, they are exactly the same. You can wrap them up in fancy words like 'criminal offense' and 'civil dispute' (and legally you're probably right) but in both cases the scumbags end up with thousands of pounds of someone else's money they are not entitled to. How is that different?
In the former case, there is a clear public interest in making it criminal, otherwise insurance fraud would spiral out of control. In the latter case, this is not a common problem (despite what Channel 5 would have you believe). It's very difficult to pass a law that deals with this problem without consequences on millions of law-abiding tenants. In any case, the landlord can be made whole via a civil claim. Therefore, no public interest. If you want to learn more about the problems that criminalisation of debts causes, visit a gaol museum and learn about the 18th Century.
My issue was understanding the difference between the two, due to both signing bits of paper with a view to making money and thought it would be the same charge in law.
The insurance fraud came up in court as “fundamentally dishonest” so in my head renting property with no intention of paying the rent and then subletting each and every room, is that not “fundamentally dishonest” The guy didn’t even move in, or use the property, so only had one intention.
The insurance fraud came up in court as “fundamentally dishonest” so in my head renting property with no intention of paying the rent and then subletting each and every room, is that not “fundamentally dishonest” The guy didn’t even move in, or use the property, so only had one intention.
Grrbang said:
In the former case, there is a clear public interest in making it criminal, otherwise insurance fraud would spiral out of control.
In the latter case, this is not a common problem (despite what Channel 5 would have you believe). It's very difficult to pass a law that deals with this problem without consequences on millions of law-abiding tenants. In any case, the landlord can be made whole via a civil claim. Therefore, no public interest. If you want to learn more about the problems that criminalisation of debts causes, visit a gaol museum and learn about the 18th Century.
Eh? What planet are you on?In the latter case, this is not a common problem (despite what Channel 5 would have you believe). It's very difficult to pass a law that deals with this problem without consequences on millions of law-abiding tenants. In any case, the landlord can be made whole via a civil claim. Therefore, no public interest. If you want to learn more about the problems that criminalisation of debts causes, visit a gaol museum and learn about the 18th Century.
In the latter case, there is a clear public interest in making it criminal, otherwise tenancy fraud would spiral out of control.
It is a common problem. So maybe you could explain why it would be difficult to pass a law to make non-payment of rent illegal and why that would have consequences on millions of law-abiding tenants who do pay their rent.
If you want to learn more about the problems that debts can cause landlords maybe you should visit the real world. Try living for 9 months with no income and someone living in your house for free.
NGee said:
Eh? What planet are you on?
In the latter case, there is a clear public interest in making it criminal, otherwise tenancy fraud would spiral out of control.
It is a common problem. So maybe you could explain why it would be difficult to pass a law to make non-payment of rent illegal and why that would have consequences on millions of law-abiding tenants who do pay their rent.
If you want to learn more about the problems that debts can cause landlords maybe you should visit the real world. Try living for 9 months with no income and someone living in your house for free.
I absolutely sympathise with those landlords who fall victim to these kinds of scams.In the latter case, there is a clear public interest in making it criminal, otherwise tenancy fraud would spiral out of control.
It is a common problem. So maybe you could explain why it would be difficult to pass a law to make non-payment of rent illegal and why that would have consequences on millions of law-abiding tenants who do pay their rent.
If you want to learn more about the problems that debts can cause landlords maybe you should visit the real world. Try living for 9 months with no income and someone living in your house for free.
But to do the tenancy scam without committing a criminal act like ID theft or tax evasion, you would need to not care about CCJ’s, bankruptcy, employment history or credit score. This information would also be visible to future landlords. These kinds of scammers may seem like they’re everywhere on these types of TV shows, but this is not the case in reality.
Whereas a surprising number of otherwise law abiding people overclaim for insured losses, and it would be a lot more if not for the fear of a criminal record
tony wright said:
Watched a couple of reality programs the other day and struggled to see how two similar (to me that is) crimes have such massive differences on sentences.
First one was “claimed and shamed” and had individuals sentenced to jail terms for knowingly committing fraud by dishonestly lodging bogus, or over inflated insurance claims. Fair enough and well deserved as they knew exactly what they were doing.
Second program was “nightmare tenants, scum landlords” and had individuals renting property, not paying the rent, then sub letting all of the rooms and actually making a living from it. Go to court and told to vacate, that’s it... absolutely no repercussions, they even had the neck to nick the furniture.
As far as I can see, they all knew what they were doing and how wrong it was, but the consequences of getting caught were so massively disproportionate.
Resources, resources, resources. The police and CPS resources need to prove that the tenants had fraudulent intent when they took the property would likely be disproportionate to the chances of so proving. Proving a state of mind is often hard. First one was “claimed and shamed” and had individuals sentenced to jail terms for knowingly committing fraud by dishonestly lodging bogus, or over inflated insurance claims. Fair enough and well deserved as they knew exactly what they were doing.
Second program was “nightmare tenants, scum landlords” and had individuals renting property, not paying the rent, then sub letting all of the rooms and actually making a living from it. Go to court and told to vacate, that’s it... absolutely no repercussions, they even had the neck to nick the furniture.
As far as I can see, they all knew what they were doing and how wrong it was, but the consequences of getting caught were so massively disproportionate.
stupidbutkeen said:
sherbertdip said:
I don't know what your problem is, totally different, first one is a criminal act i.e. Fraud, second one is civil case i.e. not paying enough rent.
Would nicking all the funiture not come under a criminal act? Or is a civil due to it being between tennent and landlord?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff