Right to Rent – Is there a counter claim?

Hello, Right now, I’m deep into trying to get my head around the latest Right to Rent regulations. It’s really not light reading, but absolutely necessary. A question struck me, that just won’t leave my already overfilled brain.

Let’s just say that, by some miracle of unfortunate chance, I end up on the wrong side of the Right to Rent regulations. Potentially, I’m housing a person that has no right to reside in the UK. I’ve done all the checks as prescribed, but I was hoodwinked, or I misunderstood something in the regulations. By whatever way the system apportions blame, let’s assume that I am deemed to have not complied.

I will face a fine for letting my property to someone that has no legal right to be in the UK. So, to avoid that happening, I need to make myself an unpaid second line of immigration defence to the UK Border Agency, members of which are all presumably rewarded with a salary. The individual concerned, being on UK soil, equates to a failure on the part of the UK Border Agency to effectively perform its duties to the full.

I assume individuals working in the UK Border Agency will not be punished for allowing that person to be unlawfully in the UK? Or even the agency as a whole?

Let’s assume that I’m not someone to lie back & take the fine, & I decide to bring a subsequent action, in light of my fine, against the UK Border Agency. How could that play out? Surely if the first line of defence is ineffective, then punishing only the second line isn’t sensible, maybe even legally a questionable practice?

Looking at this situation in a realistic manner, I shouldn’t be put in a situation where the prospective tenant is given the opportunity to gain occupancy, because that person simply shouldn’t have crossed the border into the UK. It’s also worth noting that, I can’t simply refuse the application on the basis that it’s beyond my field of risk management. Should I choose to do this, I potentially face a fine for discrimination. I have to give equal consideration to all applicants under current legislation.

Logical thinking therefore says that, as the UK Border Agency failed to prevent that individual from entering the UK, they have primary responsibility for the illegal entry of the individual. Therefore, I should have a right to recover any fines & associated costs from the primary agency that failed to uphold the rules of legal entry into the UK. At the very minimum, there should surely be a shared & proportionate financial responsibility?

If any reader is suitably qualified, I’d like to see an opinion of the chances of the success of such a claim, or to understand what makes the UK Border Agency exempt from doing what landlords are expected to achieve.

I applaud the hard work of the marvellous people that protect our borders, but I do question the ethics of a system that punishes an unpaid second line of defence against illegal immigration, when resources are inadequate for the primary defence mechanism to function effectively. Creating a second line of border defence, punishable for failure, in the form of a non-state funded landlord, seems rather a strange & unfair policy.

Thank you,

Phil