They paid rent but did not move in.

[jta]

Curious one this I think.

The tenants signed an agreement under false names.

They did not actually move into the property.

The keys were passed on to a gang and the property was used for farming!!!!!!

The rent was paid on time for three months, a strong smell coming from the flat prompted me to report it as a suspected vegetation farm to crimestoppers.

I got the property back a couple of weeks ago, there is no evidence at all of there ever being any female occupants in the place, some male clothing and toiletries were all there was.

Naturally my insurance company don't want to know.

Your opinion would be appreciated, was this a tenancy or not?

Even more curious is the fact my son (agent) inspected the place on 16th September and saw no evidence of naughtiness and there was another visitor a week later that also saw nothing amiss. No sign of the tenants however, just a young Asian man that clained to be the cleaner, yet three weeks later there was a full blown farm discovered there.

Was there a tenancy or not? what d'ya think.

[theartfullodger]

IMHO there was a tenancy, albeit not an AST.....Mr A N Other signed up as Mr B O Pillock but he had a tenancy... that "he" sublet/assigned whatever is another matter.. (No, entirely legally unqualified me...)

Not sure who the tenant is/was: I can call myself & sign up as Mr Mickey Mouse, but remain Mr Artful Lodger - presumably if I signed up for a tenancy I (Artful..) would still be the tenant, albeit the paperwork was flaky..

Do we take it no reference/credit checks - or was this false (but real..) names that checked out???

Sympathy JTA: Hasn't happened to me - yet! IIRC the conditions for payout on my LL insurance are quite tight but I do feel there's a test-case waiting to be (should be..) brought against insurers hiding behind small-print..

How many £1k down ??

Better luck next time....

[Lawcruncher]

In section 54(2) LPA 1925 "taking effect in possession", "possession" does not refer only to occupation, but also (see section 205(1)(xix)) to receipt of rent and profits and the right to receive them. Accordingly, if the person in whose favour the tenancy agreement was made allowed a third party into occupation there is a tenancy. Giving a false name does not change the position.

[mind the gap]

jta, sorry to hear all this. But if you have got the property back, does it actually matter whether or not there was a tenancy? Or are you worried about the former occupants claiming illegal eviction?

[jta]

Thanks guys

Artful. I dont think I have lost that much really, I ve been relly lucky in that all the bits were piled up in one room so I hve been able sort themall out. Only one big hole in one ceilingwhich I have been ableto patch. 10 litres of magnolia and white ceiling paint. I still have to change the bath which is ruined by chemicals. It took ten days to get the power sortdd out. I think atotal of2k willsee it back on the market. I am making a single claim for their 1 k deposit.

I just thought I should ask .....

Ps excuse poor typing, I'm in aAsda cafe using their wifi on my thingy

[Lawcruncher]

A further point is of course that even if no tenancy arose there is still a contract which binds both parties.

[jta]

A further point is of course that even if no tenancy arose there is still a contract which binds both parties.

Thanks LC.

Yes! But what parties? If the tenants do not exist, as I suspect, how can they be a party to a contract? I have photocopies of two passports and references which seemed to be Ok, but I find now that everything was false, including the 'previous' landlord that gave them a glowing reference, I actually spoke to him. Very strange.

[Lawcruncher]

I suppose the person who purported to be the tenant must be the tenant.

[theartfullodger]

This may be of interest...
http://www.property118.com/index.php...may-be-invalid

[Wickerman]

There was a tenancy, even if it was entered into with false details.

You are very lucky to walk away with only a few grand damages..... the last cannabis farm I saw was 5 doors away from my office and caused around 20k worth of damage (house caught fire).

You have the house back, move along and don't make the same mistake again!

[Claymore]

This may be of interest...
http://www.property118.com/index.php...may-be-invalid

Thanks Artful - I'm going to look at the small print on my insurance policies. Summary of the article focuses on ensuring that Landlord Insurances covers for 'Malicious Damage' - some company's are removing the cover to avoid liability.

[mind the gap]

You have the house back, move along and don't make the same mistake again!

What mistake?

Renting his house out in good faith?

(Or do you mean not insisting on stricter verification of the tenants' IDs?) But even photo ID is forgeable, if the Ts are organised and stand to make a lot of money out of a property, as in this case.

I think jta was simply very unlucky. He's an experienced landlord, not a raw recruit. It could happen to most landlords.