Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
False references
Options
Comments
-
This is not correct. Can you cite any source of law for this? there is no duty to ensure that the person you are dealing with is not trying to hoodwink you. The tenants are under a duty to be honest and not profer forged documents.
I'm not quoting law I'm referring to anybody who is going to do business with someone will should do everything to protect themselves. When you go to get finance they will do a credit check to cover themselves that you aren't a fraudster. The op has the same duty to check the inormation given to them befoee proceeding with signing anything or accepting any cash as a deposit. As I said unfortunatelt people will chance their arm and the op can do something to cover himself from getting involved with fraudsters0 -
A typical lease does not mention references, the whole idea is you check them before signing the lease. The references being false does not void the lease or comprise breaking the lease, and at this point it IS an illegal eviction. You can't sign a lease and then change your mind and keep the deposit.
And LLs thinking they can keep a deposit based on the property being empty or needing to be advertised need to relieve themselves of that notion. A PRTB adjudicator specifically told me at a hearing that a security deposit can only be retained for damage to the property, unpaid rent, or moving out before the lease end date (where there's no break clause for tenants).
To the posters who said I was making this up, etc. How many PRTB hearings have you been to? I can show you my case, LL got a five figure fine for illegally evicting me by changing the locks because he wanted to sell the house and decided that the minimum notice period was too long for him to wait.0 -
lifeandtimes wrote: »I'm not quoting law I'm referring to anybody who is going to do business with someone will should do everything to protect themselves. When you go to get finance they will do a credit check to cover themselves that you aren't a fraudster. The op has the same duty to check the inormation given to them befoee proceeding with signing anything or accepting any cash as a deposit. As I said unfortunatelt people will chance their arm and the op can do something to cover himself from getting involved with fraudsters
You said the o/p was under a duty to do something? Where does the duty come from if not law. If you obtain fiance by deceit, is the finance company supposed to shrug and say, it its our fault, we didn't check thoroughly enough?It may be prudent to check but there is no duty to do so.0 -
NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »A typical lease does not mention references, the whole idea is you check them before signing the lease. The references being false does not void the lease or comprise breaking the lease, and at this point it IS an illegal eviction. You can't sign a lease and then change your mind and keep the deposit.
And LLs thinking they can keep a deposit based on the property being empty or needing to be advertised need to relieve themselves of that notion. A PRTB adjudicator specifically told me at a hearing that a security deposit can only be retained for damage to the property, unpaid rent, or moving out before the lease end date (where there's no break clause for tenants).
To the posters who said I was making this up, etc. How many PRTB hearings have you been to? I can show you my case, LL got a five figure fine for illegally evicting me by changing the locks because he wanted to sell the house and decided that the minimum notice period was too long for him to wait.
A lease procured by a fraud can be avoided by the victim. It is basic contract law. The signature means nothing. I have been to many adjudications and tribunal hearings. An eviction is the ousting of a person from possession. The "tenants"/ thieves haven't taken possession so they can't be evicted. It is entirely different if a tenant in possession has locks changed.
If the tenants were looking for a remedy it would be specific performance of the lease. After committing a fraud they would have no chance.
Some evictions have resulted in tiny damages being awarded. I know of one where the tenant got a few hundred. Just because you were awarded damages for a wrongful eviction does not make you an authority on the issue.0 -
You said the o/p was under a duty to do something? Where does the duty come from if not law. If you obtain fiance by deceit, is the finance company supposed to shrug and say, it its our fault, we didn't check thoroughly enough?It may be prudent to check but there is no duty to do so.
Op has a duty of care to himself to protect himself by checking the references before committing to the lease. What's the point in asking for them only to check after the fact? He cpuld have waited a couple of weeks or months or years...would he evict them after this by saying your references didn't check out,he would not. Story is no different now I'm my opinion. Only difference is the tenants are probably organising things based on the fact they are supposed to move in here which will put them out even further0 -
Advertisement
-
lifeandtimes wrote: »Op has a duty of care to himself to protect himself by checking the references before committing to the lease. What's the point in asking for them only to check after the fact? He cpuld have waited a couple of weeks or months or years...would he evict them after this by saying your references didn't check out,he would not. Story is no different now I'm my opinion. Only difference is the tenants are probably organising things based on the fact they are supposed to move in here which will put them out even further
What is the source of this duty of care? A duty of care is a concept in the law of tort and only arises in respect on another person. It has no relevance in this situation. If he wishes to avoid the contract he must do so promptly or he would be held to have ratified it. The tenants/ thieves told lies and have committed a crime. Why should the o/p be concerned about them in the slightest and their moving plans? That is like a burglar suing because he tripped on a hole in the driveway on the way out.0 -
What is the source of this duty of care? A duty of care is a concept in the law of tort and only arises in respect on another person. It has no relevance in this situation. If he wishes to avoid the contract he must do so promptly or he would be held to have ratified it. The tenants/ thieves told lies and have committed a crime. Why should the o/p be concerned about them in the slightest and their moving plans? That is like a burglar suing because he tripped on a hole in the driveway on the way out.
You sound very aggrieved here, I have feeling you have been scammed before.
You keep calling them thieves but what have they stole?
Also where does it say that say legally these references have to be accurate or correct? What crime have they commited? Last time i checked they arent under oath and lying isnt a crime.That would imply they can be arrested and charged for this.
Again one of the references checked out and the other doesn't seem to have but that could be for many reasons, a simple resolution would be op contacting the tenants (and yes the are tenants now as he took their money and they signed a lease) amd asking them to confirm the reference details, could be a simple error at which point everything is fine (and they aren't thieves or criminals as you call them) or they might not be able to answer and own up. Ok should ask them anyway to figure it out0 -
NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »A typical lease does not mention references, the whole idea is you check them before signing the lease. The references being false does not void the lease or comprise breaking the lease, and at this point it IS an illegal eviction. You can't sign a lease and then change your mind and keep the deposit.
And LLs thinking they can keep a deposit based on the property being empty or needing to be advertised need to relieve themselves of that notion. A PRTB adjudicator specifically told me at a hearing that a security deposit can only be retained for damage to the property, unpaid rent, or moving out before the lease end date (where there's no break clause for tenants).
To the posters who said I was making this up, etc. How many PRTB hearings have you been to? I can show you my case, LL got a five figure fine for illegally evicting me by changing the locks because he wanted to sell the house and decided that the minimum notice period was too long for him to wait.
You are right about the deposit, that would be the normal application of it unless a valid term dictates otherwise (RTB would probably hold most terms doing so invalid).
But as regards the contract/ eviction, an eviction can only take place if the tenancy had started, which would have been when the tenant moved in. As such the tenant doesn't have the option of the RTB, but the other courts and processes are available e.g. small claims procedure.
Briefly, the OP was entitled to hold the contract void, the references represent a condition which was unfulfilled. No contract existed (although consideration passed, etc etc), unfortunately this means that the LL cannot hold the tenants to the contract either. Any action the LL takes would be in tort (misrepresentation), but in both contract and tort law there is a principle of mitigating your losses, which is what the LL should have done by checking the references before relying on the assertion. Now that is obviously the gist of it, there could be plenty of counter arguments based on other information if available.0 -
They have uttered a false instrument, which is an offence under section 26 of the theft and fraud offences act. Thus they are thieves. Simple.lifeandtimes wrote: »You sound very aggrieved here, I have feeling you have been scammed before.
You keep calling them thieves but what have they stole?
Look at Section 26 of the Theft and Fraud Offences Act. Of course they could and should be charged for this.lifeandtimes wrote: »Also where does it say that say legally these references have to be accurate or correct? What crime have they commited? Last time i checked they arent under oath and lying isnt a crime.That would imply they can be arrested and charged for this.lifeandtimes wrote: »Again one of the references checked out and the other doesn't seem to have but that could be for many reasons, a simple resolution would be op contacting the tenants (and yes the are tenants now as he took their money and they signed a lease) amd asking them to confirm the reference details, could be a simple error at which point everything is fine (and they aren't thieves or criminals as you call them) or they might not be able to answer and own up. Ok should ask them anyway to figure it out
There is no simple error. If you had read the earlier part of the thread they took great care to perpetrate the fraud. You have make numerous propositions of law, all of which are wrong. You have produced no source for this duty of care, you do not understand what an eviction is and you do not know that it is a crime to proffer false references. See you in Mountjoy!0 -
You are right about the deposit, that would be the normal application of it unless a valid term dictates otherwise (RTB would probably hold most terms doing so invalid).
But as regards the contract/ eviction, an eviction can only take place if the tenancy had started, which would have been when the tenant moved in. As such the tenant doesn't have the option of the RTB, but the other courts and processes are available e.g. small claims procedure.
Briefly, the OP was entitled to hold the contract void, the references represent a condition which was unfulfilled. No contract existed (although consideration passed, etc etc), unfortunately this means that the LL cannot hold the tenants to the contract either. Any action the LL takes would be in tort (misrepresentation), but in both contract and tort law there is a principle of mitigating your losses, which is what the LL should have done by checking the references before relying on the assertion. Now that is obviously the gist of it, there could be plenty of counter arguments based on other information if available.
The contract was voidable, not void, the o/p can ratify or avoid. Misrepresentation is not a tort. deceit is. Mitigation of loss arises after the wrong has occurred. It requires a party who has suffered a wrong to minimise his loss. It means a landlord whose tenant leaves early has to advertise for a new tenant immediately and can't leave the property empty for the notice period or the balance of the lease and then claim all of the lost rent from the former tenant.
It is complete nonsense for someone to suggest that it is a crime victims own fault that the crime happened.That is like saying a rape victim asked for it by walking in a dark area at night.0 -
Advertisement
-
The contract was voidable, not void, the o/p can ratify or avoid. Misrepresentation is not a tort. deceit is. Mitigation of loss arises after the wrong has occurred. It requires a party who has suffered a wrong to minimise his loss. It means a landlord whose tenant leaves early has to advertise for a new tenant immediately and can't leave the property empty for the notice period or the balance of the lease and then claim all of the lost rent from the former tenant.
It is complete nonsense for someone to suggest that it is a crime victims own fault that the crime happened.That is like saying a rape victim asked for it by walking in a dark area at night.
Ok and if you go to buy a second hand car off done deal, you are invited to inspect the car and ensure that it is of working order and to your standard. If you do a check and accept it and then when you drive off the engine falls out you have no recourse as it's bought as seen. Op had the opportunity to review the references prior to taking the deposit and accepting the tenants, he did not check and follow through to protect himself which places the issue with him
In this circumstance I am unsure if op has cancelled with the tenants yet or not but either way if he does they will be due their deposit back.0 -
The vanishing OP only stated:
I had two people supply me with false work references and now suspect the reference for the previous landlord is also false.
There is no explanation of what 'false' means. This is a thread of 9 pages of wild speculation nothing else.They have uttered a false instrument, which is an offence under section 26 of the theft and fraud offences act. Thus they are thieves. Simple.
Look at Section 26 of the Theft and Fraud Offences Act. Of course they could and should be charged for this.
There is no simple error. If you had read the earlier part of the thread they took great care to perpetrate the fraud. You have make numerous propositions of law, all of which are wrong. You have produced no source for this duty of care, you do not understand what an eviction is and you do not know that it is a crime to proffer false references. See you in Mountjoy!0 -
lifeandtimes wrote: »Ok and if you go to buy a second hand car off done deal, you are invited to inspect the car and ensure that it is of working order and to your standard. If you do a check and accept it and then when you drive off the engine falls out you have no recourse as it's bought as seen. Op had the opportunity to review the references prior to taking the deposit and accepting the tenants, he did not check and follow through to protect himself which places the issue with him
In this circumstance I am unsure if op has cancelled with the tenants yet or not but either way if he does they will be due their deposit back.
If you go to buy a car on done deal, ask for an NCT cert and then buy the car, yoiu can return the car and sue for damages if the NCT cert is a forgery. If you are told a lie and rely on it you can avoid. It is not the same thing as what you see is what you get. The o/p asked for references and was given forged ones. It would be different if he was given genuine ones and changed his mind. You have yert to produce a single item to back up any of your propositions.0 -
The vanishing OP only stated:
I had two people supply me with false work references and now suspect the reference for the previous landlord is also false.
There is no explanation of what 'false' means. This is a thread of 9 pages of wild speculation nothing else.
The o/p in a later post remarked they had gone to a lot of trouble with fax numbers and managers name. You obviously haven't read the 9 pages of wild speculation and nothing else.0 -
If you go to buy a car on done deal, ask for an NCT cert and then buy the car, yoiu can return the car and sue for damages if the NCT cert is a forgery. If you are told a lie and rely on it you can avoid. It is not the same thing as what you see is what you get. The o/p asked for references and was given forged ones. It would be different if he was given genuine ones and changed his mind. You have yert to produce a single item to back up any of your propositions.
A nct is nothing but a piece of paper that says the car passed regulations that day, anything can happen the next day etc and you have no recourse regardless after that.
Point still remains op should have checked the references he asked for before taking a deposit and signing the lease. By your thinking he could cancel the lease years down the line if he found out they were "false" as he put it.
Op still hasn't come back to say what the situation actually is at this time so until further information is provided I will stick with op should give the deposit back for not being thorough with his dealings with these people and be happy he is rid of them.0 -
lifeandtimes wrote:A nct is nothing but a piece of paper that says the car passed regulations that day, anything can happen the next day etc and you have no recourse regardless after that.
Forged documentation has to invalidate the contract.
Can you not see how the whole system would break down if contacts were allowed stand that were based on false documentation?0 -
-
If you buy the car in reliance on a forged one as distinct from a genuine one you do have recourse. You simply have no clue about what you are talking about.lifeandtimes wrote: »A nct is nothing but a piece of paper that says the car passed regulations that day, anything can happen the next day etc and you have no recourse regardless after that.
.lifeandtimes wrote: »Point still remains op should have checked the references he asked for before taking a deposit and signing the lease. By your thinking he could cancel the lease years down the line if he found out they were "false" as he put it.
.
What law says the op should have checked the references before he signed the contract?
Of course you will.lifeandtimes wrote: »I will stick with op should give the deposit back for not being thorough with his dealings with these people and be happy he is rid of them.0 -
This OP makes no sense at all. Doesn't sound like the mastermind scam some are making it out to be given One person worked there which the OP was able to verify with the company. One person didn't.
Who did the OP speak to at the company, how big was the company, who said the references were fake?
2 references.
Both same company ( company logo included)
False phone numbers
False Fax numbers
False managers name
1 of the applicants actually worked there
1 of applicants didn't work there
I looked up the companies phone number and rang. This is how I found out one actually worked there but other didn't.
They really did a lot of work on the reference to make them look original.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1036690860 -
The contract was voidable, not void, the o/p can ratify or avoid. Misrepresentation is not a tort. deceit is. Mitigation of loss arises after the wrong has occurred. It requires a party who has suffered a wrong to minimise his loss. It means a landlord whose tenant leaves early has to advertise for a new tenant immediately and can't leave the property empty for the notice period or the balance of the lease and then claim all of the lost rent from the former tenant.
It is complete nonsense for someone to suggest that it is a crime victims own fault that the crime happened.That is like saying a rape victim asked for it by walking in a dark area at night.
voidable = right to void, potential to act ; void = held void, done.
Misrepresentation is deceit/ fraud, I haven't really heard anyone in Ireland/UK use the term deceit, it has always been misrepresentation. But not that it matters?
The crime is a mutually exclusive issue, the guards and the DPP bring their own case for this and the LL has no right to compensate himself as part of these proceedings, he must bring his own civil action.
Causation and mitigation of losses are obviously subjective to many conditions, but in my opinion the LL cannot easily argue that proceeding as if the conditions of the contract had been fulfilled for a period was the fault of the misrepresentation, nor can he attribute any time delay between receipt of the references and checking of the same to the misrepresentation, there would be other reasons for that, got busy, etc. But you are welcome to your own opinion and I am not saying you are wrong.0 -
Advertisement
-
Misrepresentation is not (automatically) deceit/ fraud. You are right. It doesn't matter what you have or haven't hear in the UK or Ireland. What matters is what the law is.voidable = right to void, potential to act ; void = held void, done.
Misrepresentation is deceit/ fraud, I haven't really heard anyone in Ireland/UK use the term deceit, it has always been misrepresentation. But not that it matters?
The crime is a mutually exclusive issue, the guards and the DPP bring their own case for this and the LL has no right to compensate himself as part of these proceedings, he must bring his own civil action.
Wrong, they are entirely objective.Causation and mitigation of losses are obviously subjective to many conditions,
[/QUOTE]
Yes you are. You just don't know enough about law to offer any coherent argument, hence this "I might be wrong rubbish". Either you can make a proposition and stand it up or you can't. You are offering opinions with no basis in law or in fact.I am not saying you are wrong.0 -
Misrepresentation is not (automatically) deceit/ fraud. You are right. It doesn't matter what you have or haven't hear in the UK or Ireland. What matters is what the law is.
The crime is a mutually exclusive issue, the guards and the DPP bring their own case for this and the LL has no right to compensate himself as part of these proceedings, he must bring his own civil action.
Wrong, they are entirely objective.
Yes you are. You just don't know enough about law to offer any coherent argument, hence this "I might be wrong rubbish". Either you can make a proposition and stand it up or you can't. You are offering opinions with no basis in law or in fact.
Very supercilious, well done. I was being kind to you, the principle is called misrepresentation. I did not suggest that I might be wrong, far from it, just based on the information given here, it is my best opinion. Now I won't tell you tort is my area of expertise, but yet all law students will have studied tort so I know enough for some people. Problem is for those who haven't studied tort, is that google is no place to learn common law.
Subjective is the correct word, objective means to consider both sides of the argument.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Guys- the OP hasn't returned to clarify matters.
There is complete and utter speculation occuring here- which is wholly unwarranted.
I am closing the thread. If the OP does return and wants to discuss his/her issue- please PM me and I'll happily look at reopening the thread for them. I see absolutely no merit in allowing people dissect legalities and niceties in the manner in which is being done here.
Thread closed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement