Is a tenancy voidable as fraud if tenant lies on application?

Reply to the comment left by "Robert Mellors" at "15/07/2015 - 11:35":

Hi Robert,

Thank you again for your legal knowledge, i am learning a lot from your comments.

I think you are right and once the T.A has been voided as a landlord there is no well beaten path for us to follow so little gained financially or time wise going this way at present.

How does a tenant who has made fraudulent claim on their application stand though once a T.A is voided. By that i mean in terms of their deposit and the fact it was initially protected under the impression they were a genuine tenant entering into a lawful contract with their landlord.

Also are we still liable to up keep the property as there is no genuine T.A in place. Can i enter the property as and when i like without prior warning and also with who ever i like?

Sorry to put you on the spot.

Andy

Reply to the comment left by "Joan Deal" at "15/07/2015 - 11:26":

Yes, you would certainly need some basis for the opinion that it had been a fraudulent application, but what standard of proof would be necessary I don't know.

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "15/07/2015 - 12:00":

Hi Luke

That is a possibility, but it would perhaps be a brave government who knowingly and deliberately chose to allow criminal fraudsters to benefit from their fraud, particularly as this could potentially be an act that "aids and abets" a criminal activity (aiding and abetting a crime is itself a criminal act), and of course it would be a potential publicity nightmare for any government supporting criminals.

Reply to the comment left by "Andrew Holmes" at "15/07/2015 - 12:02":

Hi Andrew

I have limited legal training, I am not legally qualified, but I have done enough legal training to ask awkward questions and raise theoretical possibilities, but as the saying goes "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", so treat my comments as merely questioning the standard view/interpretation, rather than being authoritative.

I do not take deposits, but I presume this would need to be returned to the "tenant". If you held the deposit yourself, then perhaps you could keep it to offset any debt owed to you, and then let the "tenant" challenge this if they wished, but if held by the DPS then I suspect they would return it to the "tenant".

As to whether you can enter the property, again I don't know for sure, but if the landlord has notified the tenant that the tenancy is rescinded (cancelled because it is legally void/voidable), then my guess is that the person has no right to be there but you do have a right to be there so you can go in and change locks. However, like I've said, this is just supposition at the moment as it does not seem to have been tested in court (or at least I have not come across such an argument in any caselaw, apart from the similar argument in the Killick v Roberts case).

Reply to the comment left by "Robert Mellors" at "15/07/2015 - 12:28":

I'm sceptical because I have seen Judges rule that 2+2=5, knowing that if they go any other way, it will open the floodgates to a Government headache they do not want.

I'd think it would be done with a little more finesse and they would find a way to argue that the 'tenant' had rights but as for kicking someone out on the basis they have no protections because the contract is void, I very much doubt.

To the OP, a simple no.

If they have lied on the application form, then they have opened themselves up to eviction with Section 8, Ground 17.

But the tenancy remains in force.

Reply to the comment left by "Simon Topple" at "15/07/2015 - 12:48":

Does this legislation oust the common law principle that a fraudster should not benefit from his fraud, or the principle that a contract is voidable if it was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation? I realise that it provides a "ground" for possession, but this seems to be contrary to the principles espoused by the three Court of Appeal judges in the Killick case. Although it is Parliament (via civil servants) that draft the legislation, it is the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judges that interpret the legislation and there interpretations become caselaw (i.e. common law).

Reply to the comment left by "wanda wang" at "14/07/2015 - 19:58":

"After my eviction, I did try to use landlord zone’s tenant verify application, I feel this form give you a better picture of prospective tenants. But put some people off, they said I asked too much information."

Well I would see that as the first screening stage, it says a lot about them.

Reply to the comment left by "Robert Mellors" at "16/07/2015 - 23:38":

I will have to bow to superior legal minds on this. In a simple form I would be guessing if I said they still have a tenancy that can only be ended with a court order - they will still have possession, and you might try and take action against them for fraud but you would still have to take action to legally obtain possession.

We occasionally have tenants that claim that due to x, y, or z reason their contract is null and void therefore they are moving out and want their deposit back (despite them being on a joint AST with four other perfectly happy tenants).

Reply to the comment left by Joan Deal at 13/07/2015 - 12:06
Hi, I was reading your reply regarding the police charges. Can you tell me what happened in the end...probably not much..but I am interested as I have an ex tenant that has not paid the rent due even after CCJ and had obtained the tenancy with false information and not disclosed the fact they were previously evicteded.