Is my Landlord using loophole of multi tenancys to commit fraud - evidence

[leeds1]

I have just been to court where the landlord tried to use a section 21 notice.

at court it was a meeting for a directions hearing.

the Judge struck out the landlords s21 claim because he had left important information regrding bonds etc out of the document, he got the dates wrong and

the judge also noticed the irregularities between tenancy documents. ie, that there were two tenancy versions submitted to court. the judge mentioned involving forensics and discrepancies with signatures on the documents.

 

there are two more versions of the tenancy agreement/s that the court didnt see.

 

i was represented by a housing charity. we disagreed about the bond and the tenancy/s. I paid a bond and at the time of signing the tenancys, i was lead to believe that I had my own tenancy. i feel that the judge can see the foul play but the housing charity can't, or won't see it.

 

the landlord is now saying it is a joint tenancy.

 

if it is a joint tenancy, i will be liable for huge debts

 

he took a bond from me and did not protect it.

 

his accounting is riddled with errors and inconsistencies.

 

he wount provide me with full accounting, just his made up versions which dont tally.

 

how can it be a joint tenancy when there are multiple versions of the agreement/s?

[king12345]

I suppose the first signature is the LL, the other two have been forged quite badly.

The LL is asking for trouble and as far as I know the section 21 is invalid unless he returns the unprotected deposit to you, regardless of money owed.

I would put a counterclaim through for the unprotected deposit.

The fact the the judge already spotted inconsistencies in the LL story makes things much easier for you.

If you would prefer to just walk away clean from all of this, you can write a letter to the LL highlighting his inconsistencies and the unprotected deposit and offer to forget about it all if he withdraws the claim and protects your deposit.

[leeds1]

the landlords claim was struck out.

the housing charity still have my documents and are being vague about returning them and what they will return to me.

the landlord and other tenant mislead me from the start about the tenancies. they told me that the other tenant had paid a deposit and bond of £600

 

the tenancys photographed above in order from the top down are -

1. my tenancy at start of tenancy showing that I paid £600 at start of tenancy (300 which was a bond which was not protected)

 

2. my tenancy after it was altered

- the bond not returned as suggested - it was not protected correctly and not returned - there are no official documents other than the tenancys that acknowledge my bond or what happened to it the landlord kept the cash and altered the accounting - nothing was returned )

 

3 the other tenant's tenancy after it was altered ( this was created in fraud as neither a bond nor rent was paid by the tenant. I was told about this, in a recording made of a meeting, nearly four months after signing tenancys)

 

4 the landlord ?/ s tenancy after it was altered ( why has he got a tenancy? how many signed tenancys does a landlord need? whre is the bond accouting for all of the tenancys or, in fact, any documentaion of any of the bonds that the landlord has acknowledged with his signatures on the tenancys? is this a HMO?

 

I recorded meetings with my landlord where he admits the other tenant started the tenancys in debt, he did not pay a bond or rent at the start of the tenancys. they have both lied to me from the start of the tenancys

 

the housing charity meant to be helping me doesnt seem to care about the bonds or multiple tenancies but have zoomed through nearly £2000 in legal aid costs when i expect a letter from them to the landlord would have easily got him to discontinue the case for the price of a stamp and a few minutes to compile and send it.

 

i am learning fast about housing law and can see there are serious discrepancies in the contracts from the start of the contract/s

 

I want to claim against my landlord and feel that I can only do this as a self litigant.

 

i believe that both the landlord and tenant have used Theft by False Accounting ( section 17 Theft Act 1968)

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60

 

they have "dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another with the intention of permantly depriving the other of it" by -

 

a, committing fraud at the start of contracts,

b, involving and implicating me by getting me to sign fraudulent contracts

c, changed the terms of contracts from separate to joint responsibility

d, took a bond and deposit total of £600 from me and did not protect my bond ( the bond belongs to me and is my property and can not be changed because a landlord feels like it)

e, did not disclose arrears and debt at the start of the tenancy

f allowed the other tenant to build up arrears and debt

g, the other tenant has only paid £200 in TOTAL towards rent, bond or bills since the start of the tenancy. the landlord has falsifed the accounts in the other tenants favour. i can prove this from recordings of meetings with the landlord. his accounting does not match .

 

I am the only one who has paid anything into this house since i moved in. I have been paying bills and rent and am really struggling with this.

[mariner51]

Both you & LL had their day in Court where you prevailed.

Nothing can prevent LL rectifying mistakes prior to Service of valid s21.

[leeds1]

the landlord has sent me another section 21 notice.

I think it is invalid because he did not officially protect my bond and also because he did not oficially return the bond.

he has enclosed a how to rent checklist which is different from the one he gave me.

the one that he gave me shows that a bond was paid in the tick box that acknowledges the deposit paperwork.

so I believe the new section 21 notice is invalid for various reasons.

I believe he can not use a section 21 notice if he didnt protect the bond

 

I am slowly preparing a letter for my landlord and a DSAR.

[king12345]

Let him take you to court again and waste more money.

His section 21 notice is not valid until he gives you back the deposit.

Even better, why don't you sue him for non protection of your deposit?

You could be awarded up to 3 times the deposit amount.

[AndyOrch]

Post unapproved....its irrelevant if you have not obtained their permission, potentially a breach of that person’s right to privacy and adds nothing to your thread.

 

Andy

[leeds1]

the landlord chose to turn up uninvited and the recording was made in my home which I was paying rent for and that 20 second clip was relevent to the thread because

it shows that both the landlord and tenant mislead me at the signing of the tenancy/s

and that the tenancys were commited in fraud from the start

the tenant was in arrears from the start or even before the start of the new tenancys

and the landlord and tenant worked together to get me to sign the tenancys

then changed the terms by altering the paperwork even more

 

the landlord needed to get the old bond paid back to the remaining tenant so that he could get the tenant out of the property

the others had left because of his debts and refusal to pay anything

i was used to get the tenant into a position where he did not have a bond on the house

my bond was not protected because there was already a bond on the house. ( the old bond was cashed in in Decenber which is after I moved in) there is very questionable activity regarding the bond/s

 

it is vital that I have these recordings because they show the facts and in date order and can be compared to the paperwork to show massive contradictions and irregularities

they also show abuse of my personal data by misrepresenting the facts through the paperwork

the recording was made because the landlord was regularly turning up without notice and without permission

the landlord was changing the terms of the agreements every time he came and always in the landlords favour

my privacy and right to quiet enjoyment was completely disregarded

the landlord and tenant were altering my personal data together

neither of them had my permission to do this

neither of them disclosed what they were doing to me by manipulating the paperwork and they have put me in a position where i have suffered damage to my credit rating because I have been linked to the other tenants debts since they changed the tenancy from separate tenants to a joint tenancy

the landlord clearly knew that the other tenant is a nightmare and wanted him out

 

I recorded all meetings or visits because of the frequency of the visits and the way things were unfolding. I recorded this in the interests of detecting and proving criminal activity, in the publics interest and for my own protection

 

the recordings can be used to check the accounting because I asked the landlord about what was being paid and his answers can be dated and do not tally with his accounting on paper. I have asked for the full accounting through the housing charity but, as they have my data, I do not have copies of the letters or my data until it is released

 

the problem with the Data Act is that it is constantly being processed unfairly and also used to cover or hide the facts by corporate entities and rarely works in the publics favour. the landlord is not my friend, he is someone I made a legal agreement with on equal and fair terms and he has not stuck to the terms of the agreement

 

the only way to highlight faults in the Data Act is by showing how data is so easily being abused

 

if I did not have recordings, I would not be able to prove anything at all

 

I would not be on the forum if I didnt think I could prove what I say

 

rogue landlords are free to do whatever they like without question because the evidence submitted to court, if it ever gets there, is so poor.

 

I put the recording up because this is a consumer forum and because there is a facility for putting films up at the top of the post entry box. i genuinely am sorry if I offended anyone or broke the rules.

 

The Data Protection Act behaves like a gagging order most of the time. it is very hard and expensive trying to find anything out about your own personal data so i'm fighting back in my own way by gathering my own data.

 

I suspect the clip was censored because somewhere there was a fear of offending the landlord or breaching the Data Protection Act.

 

I want to be in control of my data which is why I need to record the facts when I am in a position where I feel threatened

 

I also need to know my financial position and responsibilities and to know where I stand regarding bills and debts and dont want to leave here bancrupt and homeless

[leeds1]

I found this about bonds on

https://www.depositprotection.com/help/browse/custodial/agent-landlord/repayments

 

"If a third party pays the deposit and is entitled to claim all or part of the deposit repayment, they should be registered as the lead tenant on the deposit submission. The third party can then fully influence the distribution of the deposit repayment and doesn’t actually need to reside in the property. The actual tenant(s) can be registered as additional tenants."

 

could the landlords extra tenancy in the photo above have been used as being the third party who is registered as the additional tenant? if you look at the bond paid back part, there is heavy crossing out where the figures were. also the landlord put that particular tenancy in as his evidence in his claim for posession

 

there was a bond still on the house when I moved in and it should have gone to the remaining tenant as the other two had left already.

the landlord and tenant started new tenancys with me.

the old bond was returned in December because there was a letter addressed to the tenant "and others" that said it was returned.

I was completely kept out of that and feel that my data was used to get the old bond back and without my permission

 

so when I paid my bond, the landlord had no intention of registering it. he simply used me to start a new tenancy/s and then got the old bond returned. he put the tenant in debt to get him out when he should have kept the bond attached to the house/tenant because he took a bond off me. they said there was a bond already and that the tenant had paid £600 is why Iwas asked to pay £300 bond and £300 rent upfront. three tenancies were created that all showed bonds paid

 

the landlord and tenant are both attempting to discredit me. I know that what has happened is very wrong and I have to defend myself. if I dont defend this it will also make me liable for the other tenants debts by saying that it was a joint tenancy that I signed. there are his old debts attached to the council tax file but they wont tell me what they are because of Data Protection!

 

I would never have signed a joint tenancy. it was not presented to me that way.

 

I am an independant person and can see the real dangers of signing a joint tenancy with someone else who may not pay their bills and rent.