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.

[RebootYourEngine]

In the bedroom photo it looks like there is a double bed and a single bed in there.

I would sack the agent and give your tenants notice.

[PersianCatLady]

Also on a rolling contract the landlord must give 2 month notice and tenant only one.
She doesn't need to worry about that if they have broken the AST she can issue a section 8 at any time and if the LL proves the breach in court, the court can give the tenant either 14 days, four weeks or two months notice.

[Chwaraeteg]

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.

If I were your tenant I would be fuming. You're basically putting them under surveillance (asking the neighbours about them, using tradespeople to spy on them etc) and hugely breaching their privacy. Disgusting.

If you have suspicions that your tenants are up to no good, go through the proper legal channels. Contact your local Housing Officer. Try acting like a decent human being (this would include not evicting a family with a child / children on a mere hunch that they may be doing something wrong).

You also sound completely clueless about your rights and responsibilities as a landlord. Get your shit together.

[PersianCatLady]

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 clearly don't understand the DPA does not apply in the situation here, where the OP has taken a few photos of her own house. There is no personal data being revealed here. Your attitude is disgusting, these tenants are more than likely breaking their tenancy and you don't think that she has a right to try and do something about that. People like you make me sick.

You also sound completely clueless about your rights and responsibilities as a landlord. Get your shit together.
You clearly don't understand these either as you have suggested the OP sees a local housing officer and there is no need for her to do so.

If the OP wants the family out for any reason at all or no reason at all, she has the right to give them 2 months notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 as long as this isn't before the end of the fixed term of the tenancy.

If the tenants have broken the AST, the OP can issue a section 8 notice and go to court, where the court (if the breach is proven) is able to give the tenants 14 days, four weeks or 2 months notice at their discretion.

I really don't understand where you get off thinking that the rights of the OP who owns the property are not as important as the tenants. If the tenants had stuck to the letter of the AST this wouldn't even be an issue but by the looks of it they haven't and there has to be consequences in situations like this.

[Chwaraeteg]

Perisan cat lady: The landlord hasn't just 'taken a few photo's of her own house'. She has taken photo's of someone else's personal property and residence (which could potentially lead to them being identified) and shared them online without their permission. She has also made accusations regarding her tenants of which she has no proof.

Just because a Landlord owns a property doesn't mean that their rights to it are absolute. The tenants are paying for the right to solely occupy the property. - and all of the statutory and contractual rights that go along with this.

It's not myself that has decided that 'the right of the OP who owns the property are not as important as the tenants'. It's Parliament (or the OP herself, since she exchanged many of her rights to the property for money, when she became a landlord).

I haven't said that the OP has no legal right to kick out the tenants, just that a decent human being wouldn't do so on the mere hunch that something was amiss.

Too many landlords want all of the benefits of renting out a property and want to accept none of the legal burdens or responsibilities.

[Sillybillybonker]

In most parts of the country two households in a 3-bedroomed property would not be an HMO. This statement is absolutely incorrect. Planning laws apply across the whole of England. 2 unrelated households in 1 property would most certainly be an HMO

[YelloDraw]

This statement is absolutely incorrect

Agreed.

HMO definition is very clear.

A HMO is a house occupied by more than 2 qualifying persons, being persons who are not all members of the same family.
A “qualifying person” is a person whose only or principal place of residence is the HMO. A student’s term time accommodation is regarded as the student’s only or principal place of residence while he/she is living there.
You are considered to be a member of the same family if you are the spouse (or you live together as husband and wife), civil partner (or you live together as if you are civil partners), parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother/sister, uncle/aunt, nephew/niece of the other person.

[Pineau]

Chwaraeteg, I could have posted the right move link to my house with the same photos.
I,or the agent or someone I trust can do a visit to the property to inspect.
I haven't asked any neighbours about them.
Two tradespersons both mentioned that there were many adults and kids in the house. I did not ask them to spy.
The fact that I paid an agent full management and when I saw their photos of their inspection, with seven beds, fridges etc and not getting a straight answer from the agent as to how many are actually living in my house, I then after hearing from tradespersons that I had a rather full house, I then sent someone with the proper notice to do my own inspection.

[PersianCatLady]

Perisan cat lady: The landlord hasn't just 'taken a few photo's of her own house'. She has taken photo's of someone else's personal property and residence (which could potentially lead to them being identified) and shared them online without their permission. She has also made accusations regarding her tenants of which she has no proof
I spent a year at university learning about the Data Protection Act and have recently completed third year level OU module that deeply involved law for digital media. This is not a DPA issue, you can't tell who the tenants are from any of these pictures. I really hate it when people claim that someone has broken a law that they themselves know nothing about.

Just because a Landlord owns a property doesn't mean that their rights to it are absolute. The tenants are paying for the right to solely occupy the property. - and all of the statutory and contractual rights that go along with this
Yes I know this but the tenants have to abide by the law and their AST, they clearly don't appear to be.

I haven't said that the OP has no legal right to kick out the tenants, just that a decent human being wouldn't do so on the mere hunch that something was amiss
Decent tenants would have abided by the AST and shouldn't have taken it upon themselves to ruin the interior décor by decorating it in such as appalling manner.

Too many landlords want all of the benefits of renting out a property and want to accept none of the legal burdens or responsibilities
Yes but the OP is doing that. Not accepting the burdens would be turning up when the tenants are out, gaining access, changing the locks and throwing the tenants' possessions out onto the street.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?

[DesolateWaist]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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"