b'CHECK, CHECK AND CHECK AGAIN CLADDING: A CAUSE FOR FOR FRAUDULENT REFERENCES COMPLAINTA landlord made a complaint to TPO concerning theThe buyer in this case stated that the agent referencing that was undertaken by the agent on misrepresented the property purchased as they failed her tenants. to make them aware that concerns had been raised as The landlord explained that she was assured by theto the type of cladding at the property, following the agent, before she agreed to the tenancy, that theGrenfell fire.tenants (Ms A and Mr B) had passed referencingCentral to this case was the fact that the same checks. After the tenancy commenced, the landlordcompany was both managing the block, via their block stated that the tenants paid no further rent, that Mrmanagement company, and instructed by the sellers B became threatening, and that the tenants harassedof the flat for sale.the occupant of the flat above, the landlords sister.In July 2017, the block management company had The landlord requested referencing documentationprovided residents and owners with an update on fire from the agent, and, having received this information,safety at the development in light of recent events at identified a number of anomalies that she consideredGrenfell Tower. It stated test samples of the cladding indicated that the references provided wereat the block had been submitted and confirmed that fraudulent. The landlord alleged that the agent the cladding was made of Aluminium Composite failed to thoroughly reference the tenants, and thatMaterial (ACM). had the agent done so, the tenancy would not haveThe letter included the information that it was by gone ahead. then known that certain types of ACM cladding had The agent maintained that the tenants were fullynot met expected performance standards in terms of referenced by a third-party referencing provider andexternal fire spread. This material appeared to have passed those checks.been widely used across the construction industry The agent was obligated to obtain proof of identity andincluding in some form on more than 190 Blocks in proof of address for each of the tenants. The agentcentral London. In light of the recent large-scale obtained proof of identity, in the form of passports,tests on cladding systems undertaken, MHCLG had from both tenants. Proof of address was given foradvised that the majority of these systems were no Ms A. and no adverse credit history was identified.longer compliant with current building standards However, no proof of address, was obtained for Mr B.and presented a higher risk in respect of fire safety. No steps were taken to verify Mr Bs address, and as However, unlike Grenfell, this block was built with a consequence no credit check was possible.and still had full and proper fire precautions with fire doors, fire stopping, fire alarms, smoke extract The agent advised the referencing provider thatsystems and no gas in the apartments and a full the rent was to be paid in full in advance whichsprinkler system throughout.circumvented the income and employment checksThe buyer viewed the property in August 2017 and that would normally be conducted. The rent was notmade an offer which was accepted.paid in full in advance, nor was there any evidence that this was ever intended. The agent provided noThe buyer alleged that he had been mis-sold the explanation for this point. property, there having been evidence that the In addition to the landlords reference obtained by thecompany knew of the ACM cladding issue in August referencing provider, Ms A supplied the agent with2017 but allowed the sale to proceed.a written reference purportedly from her currentRead this detailed case with the Ombudsmanslandlord stating that Ms A had lived at her currentview and outcome here:address for three years and had paid the rent onwww.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-time. It was clear from information the landlordreleases/case-studies/item/cladding-a-subsequently obtained that this reference was notcause-for-complaintprovided by the previous landlord and had been faked by the tenants. Read this case and the Ombudsmans decision at:www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/check-check-and-check-again-for-fraudulent-references13'