To be suspicious of many people living in my house?

[Pineau]

I rent out my house via an agent, original guy who worked for agent who I dealt with was sacked for some reason, anyway rental was for a small family, parents and one child.
Soon after they moved in, fridge was reported broke so I ordered a new one for next day delivery.
Some months later agent did an inspection, old and new fridge in photos. Apparently the fridge started working again.
Then the new washing machine broke.
Agent said all in order,
Then they wanted a cooker hood installed as lots of condensation from cooking..
Now water pouring through ceiling from shower.
Plumbers there have said there were a lot of people in the house, four adults and three kids..
Anyway have the agent going to see tomorrow.

[PersianCatLady]

The tenants are actively looking for new accommodation and will put the decor back as it was
That's a relief.

I don't want to worry you but I would get the agent to ensure that the new appliances you mentioned are left behind when the tenants leave. Seeing as they have kept both the old and new ones, I would not be surprised if the new appliances were removed from the property and the old ones left in place.

[PersianCatLady]

Persian Cat - there may be something more that journalists get caught up in
In English law there are no restrictions on taking photos in public places apart from in a few specifically defined (by law) exceptions and restrictions, for example of children and in courtrooms.

[Pineau]

Hi, have heard back from agent, just a short email that the tenants are actively looking for new accommodation and will put the decor back as it was.
As to being clueless and get my shit together, that is why I pay for a full management service so I should not have to deal with these issues and the agent asking me to deal with the tenant when he is stressed. I pay for someone who should be clued up.

[PersianCatLady]

That's a matter of opinion. Isn't that why the OP is asking AIBU?
No.

She is asking about whether she IBU about thinking that there are more people in her house than there should be and about what action she should she should take with regards to the damage that they have caused to her home.

She was also asking about what action should take with regards to her apparently useless letting agent.

The OP herself never once mentioned anything about the Data Protection Act until you made the following rude and unhelpful comments -
"I hope you realise that by posting pictures of the tennant's belongings / property here you are in breach of the Data Protection Act? I do so hope you get sued"
"You also sound completely clueless about your rights and responsibilities as a landlord. Get your shit together"

I think that the OP actually posted on here for help and advice which most people kindly gave. Whilst you decided to turn the thread into the Chwaraeteg sideshow where you wanted to argue and make it all about you.

[milliemolliemou]

Persian Cat - there may be something more that journalists get caught up in. If the owner is posting on Mumsnet AND her house if up for rent/sale on RightMove, then someone could triangulate if so inclined?

[Chwaraeteg]

That's a matter of opinion. Isn't that why the OP is asking AIBU?

[PersianCatLady]

I didn't realise the tenant had given the OP permission to publish the photos online
Either way it doesn't matter whether permission was granted or not, the OP has done nothing wrong.

[Chwaraeteg]

Ah, no. I didn't realise the tenant had given the OP permission to publish the photos online. I must have missed that. apologies!

[AbyssinianBanana]

Chwaraeteg - you DO understand the estate agent came round with a camera and took the pictures with the tenants' permission? And received their permission to publish the image on the fucking Internet?

Cause I don't think you do.

[PersianCatLady]

A photograph is not data under the provisions of the Act
Sorry I don't want to get slated by anybody for inaccuracy so I should have qualified the statement above by saying "A photograph is not data under the provisions of the Act in these circumstances"

[PersianCatLady]

In a case where the photos contained images of the tenants faces then you may have been able to argue that there was a breach in some very specific circumstances.

But a photo of a few pairs of trainers in a hallway seriously get real.

[PersianCatLady]

You may well have graduated with an LLB but you clearly don't understand data protection law.

It is so logical so I will ask you again -

Think about it I can take a photograph of anyone I choose to in the street and post it online complete with details of where and when I took it and there is nothing that person can do. Otherwise how do you think the newspapers would survive if publishing a photograph without the consent of the person in it was illegal?

But instead of answering that you have suddenly got a migraine and can't answer.

[Chwaraeteg]

Yeah, I'm familiar with the definition of data under the dpa,thanks (I graduated with an LLB in 2008, so I'm not completely clueless, thanks). Im speaking in general term rather than getting into in depth statutory interpretation here because a) i cant be arsed /its boring, b) i have a headache.

Photos can be considered data. If they can lead to identification of an individual alone, or as arguably these can (they show the interior of the Tennant's house, any of the tenants family, friends or acquaintances who have visited their property could come to a public forum like mumsnet and identify who the subject of this post from these photos). The tenant has given permission for these photos /data to be processed but not for the purposes for which they are being used.

I'm sorry if you disagree. I do have to call it a day now because I'm getting a migraine, sorry.

[PersianCatLady]

Thing is though OP technically if your lease doesnt insist all residents are named
Most ASTs nowadays contain a clause to the effect of -
"The Tenant must not allow any other adults to live at the property without the written consent of the Landlord"

This standard clause is contained in the model AST agreement that the government provide on their website and most of letting agents also include a clause like this.

In fact I don't think I have ever seen an AST without this type of clause as otherwise how could the LL have any control over who lived there?

[PersianCatLady]

Its pretty clear. Under the DPA, data must only be processed for it’s specified process
Sorry no you are completely wrong, which is sad as I thought you might have been able to work this out.

A photograph is not data under the provisions of the Act. I could tell you what the complete legal definition of data is but I doubt you would believe me about that either.

Think about it I can take a photograph of anyone I choose to in the street and post it online complete with details of where and when I took it and there is nothing that person can do. Otherwise how do you think the newspapers would survive if publishing a photograph without the consent of the person in it was illegal?

[Chwaraeteg]

The second Data Protection Principle

‘Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes’.

The Information Commissioners office has published guidance saying that:

In practice, the second data protection principle means that you must:
• be clear from the outset about why you are collecting personal data and what you intend to do with it;
• comply with the Act’s fair processing requirements – including the duty to give privacy notices to individuals when collecting their personal data;
• comply with what the Act says about notifying the Information Commissioner; and
• ensure that if you wish to use or disclose the personal data for any purpose that is additional to or different from the originally specified purpose, the new use or disclosure is fair.

[Chwaraeteg]

Its pretty clear. Under the DPA, data must only be processed for it’s specified process. Unless the OP has actually asked her tenant, ‘ hey, is it ok if I take pictures of your residence / personal property which could potentially identify you and post it on a public forum along with a couple of unproven allegations about your behaviour’ then I’d say the data here isn’t being processed for it’s specified purpose.

[turnaroundbrighteyes]

Thing is though OP technically if your lease doesnt insist all residents are named which you seem to say it doesnt as only one of the adult tenants you agreed to are on there then are they in breach of the lease?

Sounds to me as if the agents have looked at the 3 double beds and decided 4 adults fit perfectly and are a safer bet (for them) of paying the rent then worded the lease accordingly.

Do you have anything in writing specifying that the house could only be occupied by a maximum of 2 adults?

[PersianCatLady]

No, data has to be used for the purpose stated and nothing more
Again you clearly have no idea about what you are talking about but seeing as I have given you the details of the statute involved I am really looking forward to your legally justifiable arguments about how the OP has breached the DPA.

[PersianCatLady]

I still maintain that that's a disgusting breach of privacy and a breach of the DPA
It is not a breach of the DPA, just because you don't understand the law it doesn't mean you can make it up.

If you want to read the DPA in full it is Chapter 29 of 1998 and it has 75 sections and 16 additional schedules.

If you wish to come back after reading all of that and tell me which part of the Act the OP has breached I would be very pleased to hear.

[DesolateWaist]

If you can identify someone from a pair of green converse then I suggest you get in touch with Scotland Yard.

[Chwaraeteg]

Would everyone here be fine with photos being taken of their hallway, bedroom and living room decor being taken and shared online without their knowledge or permission?

[Chwaraeteg]

No, data has to be used for the purpose stated and nothing more. The tenant has not given permission for these photo's to be shared on mumsnet alongside unproven allegations about them.

[Dadstheworld]

The house is for sale on right move, The tenant gave access for the photos to be taken. There are zero DPA issues here.

[Chwaraeteg]

But the tenant can be identified by anyone they know from that photo of their hallway and belongings - alongside allegations that have been posted about them!

I still maintain that that's a disgusting breach of privacy and a breach of the DPA.

Luckily, I've never had any problems with my various landlords. They've always been decent, reasonable people but if I was your tenant I would be furious.