I smell a rat in this tale of a criminal tenant – and claims of a job in pest control

Ms L.F. writes: To supplement my pension, I decided to rent out my late mother’s house. I chose Howards Estate Agents to find a suitable tenant in full time employment, but it later became apparent they were not and defaulted on the rent. Howards used a separate firm called Letsure to make checks, and it had accepted a single email as proof of the tenant’s employment. He had breached two suspended prison sentences, was convicted of drug offences, and was under a three-month curfew when he and his partner moved in. However, the Property Ombudsman says Howards has no responsibility for Letsure, and Letsure will not communicate with me as its contract is with Howards. Tenancy references in these circumstances are meaningless.

YOUR complaints against Howards, and the Ombudsman’s enquiries, went on for a long time, but the crucial period is in the summer of 2014 when you were looking for tenants for the property near Norwich, in Norfolk.

Howards asked the Letsure checking agency to look into the would-be tenants, and Letsure recommended their acceptance. The couple were not on any public record such as the electoral register at their existing address, but they explained they were staying with friends.

The crucial information from Letsure was that the man was in full time work as a pest controller, earning £35,000 a year. This was odd. You see, almost three months earlier, in June 2014, the same man was arrested at his then home when police found he was growing cannabis plants under heat lamps in his garage.

When he appeared in court, he turned up in a wheelchair. His defence was that he had a chronic medical condition, was disabled, and that he grew cannabis for medicinal use. He escaped a prison sentence, despite previous convictions.

So while he was presenting himself as disabled to the police and court in Hull, he was also claiming to be a full time pest controller with a care home company 165 miles away in Hertfordshire. The care home company that emailed confirmation has since closed down so cannot be questioned.

The court appearance in the wheelchair was several weeks after Letsure wrote its approving report, so Letsure can hardly be blamed for failing to predict it. But I found that in September 2013, the tenant was given a ten-week suspended sentence for drink driving, driving without a proper licence, driving without insurance, and breaching a conditional discharge for an earlier offence. And in April 2014, the same man was given a ten-month suspended prison sentence for conspiracy to steal.

If I found all this, why didn’t Letsure? It told me: ‘At the time of the reference in 2014, Letsure provided set information on the prospective tenants. We have completed a full and independent investigation into the reference process undertaken for this particular tenancy; we have found this to be compliant with the contracted delivery service.’

This appears to mean that Letsure carried out a tick-box check, and none of the boxes obliged it to see whether the tenant was lying or had a lengthy criminal record.

Oh, and the ‘full and independent investigation’? That was carried out by Letsure itself. Howards repeated that ‘all procedures relating to referencing were followed correctly’, and so did the Property Ombudsman who decided it was not reasonable to expect Letsure to go further than accepting the employer’s email at face value, even though you suspect it came from a friend of the tenants.

In fact, Howards went further, telling me all was well until 2017, when the tenants stopped paying rent. Howards say this was because of delays in carrying out certain repairs, and because you wanted a rent increase. You have denied this, and it was Howards themselves who suggested an increase, the first in three years.

Despite this unpleasant hint from Howards that you were a bad property owner, a senior figure at

Spicerhaart Group – the company behind Howards – wrote: ‘I sympathise with you and the situation you find yourself in, because it is through no fault of your own. It is because of the tenant’s actions and behaviour.’

Howards declined to answer some questions on the grounds that the relevant staff member had left, and it kept no written records of whatever advice they might have given. They denounced some of the information you gave me as mere hearsay, because of the absence of their own records.

There is no happy ending to all this. I understand the tenants have left, leaving you heavily out of pocket. You relied on Howards to find good tenants. They relied on Letsure to vet them. But you, the customer, have been the loser.