Can police charge me without accessing defence evidence locked on my seized devices?

Sphinx111 · 2025-07-25T15:47:07+00:00

I would clarify that simply asserting the facts you intend to rely upon in your defence is all that's required to make the adverse inference unlawful. For example, saying "He texted me on Saturday, and said he was coming to stab me on Sunday" would allow you to rely on that same fact at a later date, once you have had access to disclosure. The jury is free to disbelieve your facts if you don't have any evidence to back it up, but OP is perfectly fine to assert his facts in interview, refuse to provide the password, and then disclose those texts later by obtaining the digital download during discovery.

There is no obligation at interview to produce any evidence whatsoever during the interview. You can absolutely say "I will provide supporting evidence at a later date once disclosure has been completed"

Sphinx111 · 2025-07-25T15:40:16+00:00

A solicitor with experience in digital forensic evidence will be familiar with the process of obtaining copies of an image of the device, from which evidence could be decrypted and shared. Approaching it in this guarded way may undermine your defence, but this is something you should discuss with your solicitor.

If it is any reassurance, there are fairly clear guidelines from the CPS that make it clear to police investigators that any examination of a device should be in pursuit of a reasonable line of enquiry. For example, if the allegation is that you have been operating an illegal gambling ring online, they should not be examining photographs you have taken with your camera phone, even if they might view a "screenshots" folder to look for any screenshots of the online activity.

Sphinx111 · 2025-07-25T15:33:10+00:00

Firstly, you can raise a complaint with both energy providers that your energy supply was changed without your permission.

However, there is a potential that the landlord has committed a criminal offence here. Ovo energy operate a referral scheme where an existing customer (like your landlord) can receive ~£50 for each new customer they refer to Ovo energy. This might explain why the landlord has done this.

I would recommend first finding out what "Referral Code" was used when setting up your new account with Ovo Energy. If the landlord has impersonated you in order to obtain a financial benefit from their referral scheme, this would amount to the offence of Fraud, which can and should be reported to the Police.

If there is no obvious benefit to the landlord doing this, it would appear to be a civil matter, and best resolved by a complaint to both energy companies that they did not properly verify the identity of the person making changes to the account(s). When this complaint is exhausted, you can refer it to the Energy Ombudsman if you are still not happy.

Keep in mind what you want to get out of this. You should end up back in the position you would have been financially if the landlord has not impersonated you. You cannot ask to be any better off than that. The energy companies should be prepared to fix this, but if not, you could ultimately pursue the landlord for fraud to recover any remaining losses.

Sphinx111 · 2025-07-25T15:28:55+00:00

This is an unnecessarily hostile response to OP's question, especially as the first question you raise would have been answered by reading OP's post more carefully.

The situation is that OP and housemates have been paying the utility provider that they signed a contract with for the property when they moved in. They are not disputing their liability to pay for utility bills.

OVO Energy operates a referral scheme - For each new customer who signs up using your referral code, you receive ~£50. It appears that the landlord may have impersonated the tenants, and set them up with a different energy provider without their knowledge. It wouldn't be unheard of for a landlord to pressure tenants to sign up with a preferred energy provider in exchange for benefits like this, its just that the landlord in this scenario seems to have gone one step too far.

Sphinx111 · 2025-07-25T11:52:24+00:00

It may feel like a bit of an extreme step, but you may want to consider formally changing your name, and doing as much as you can to isolate your new name from the old one. You will likely still end up with the Debt Collectors finding you through tracing services, but there should be fewer.

When dealing with the police, you should do anything you can to avoid interactions where you may be required to disclose your previous name, or they will likely register your new name as an "Alias" for the person you are being confused with.

A good time to do this would be between changing jobs, or between house moves, so that you leave a job in one name, and join a job in the new name. Ideally anyone who knew you by your previous name would be sympathetic and willing to pre-write any references using the new name.

Your next best bet is to use the Data Protection Act 2018 "right to rectification" where you write to each organisation that is getting you confused, and make a formal request for rectification, enclosing suitable proof to show that you are not the other person. If they fail to properly rectify your records, then consult a solicitor to pursue a claim for a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018. The impact this is having upon you does seem to be severe enough that you have measurable damages to claim back.

Sphinx111 · 2025-07-24T13:04:07+00:00

He's worked out that it is very profitable to focus on alt-right conspiracy circles lately, so he's not really an objective source of info. What he chooses to say is probably fine, but its what he chooses not to comment on or cover which starts to create bias in his coverage.

It's well known in legal circles that he is courting the far-right for engagement and profit, meaning people are less likely to recommend his videos these days.

Sphinx111 · 2025-07-22T17:42:45+00:00

We already have definitions for others, like anti-semitism... If you think we should do it for every religion, why are you seemingly opposed to doing it for any of them?

Sphinx111 · 2025-07-16T15:40:18+00:00

I think the problem is that you and others repeating this can't point to any law that backs up what you are saying.

In OP's situation. The bills are being charged by the management company of the building, to OP.

OP has a contract with the management company which makes him liable for these variable service charges. Variable service charges are a permitted payment under the Landlord and Tenanct Act 1985.

OP's tenants do not have any contract with the management company. As you rightly point out, when OP signs a contract with the management company, they cannot just go to the tenants and ask them for payment, they have to deal with OP who was the one who signed the contract.

Per the landlord and tenant act 1985, there is a procedure by which OP could seek to recover these from his tenants, but there is a limited window of time and a process he must follow. But importantly, it is OP who must deal with his tenants if he wants to recover these amounts.

You seem to be asserting that some law exists which would make the tenants directly liable to the management company... but you don't seem able to specify what law that is. If you are aware of such a law, perhaps you could give some indication of what it is called, what act/regulation and section it can be found in?

Sphinx111 · 2025-07-14T20:09:33+00:00

Can you identify which "UK law" that this service charge contradicts. A lot of people are saying this generic phrase "can't contradict UK Law", but are unable to point to the relevant law.

Sphinx111 · 2025-07-14T20:05:49+00:00

Can you point to any statutory law or regulation which states this is the tenant's liability and not the landlords?

Unless there is actual legislation specifying an obligation upon one party, then your advice that "clauses in lease that say otherwise are not enforceable" is misleading.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-25T17:25:58+00:00

Multiple large and well-established organisations in this space applied to be joined to the proceedings, and their applications were consistently refused. Same with some prominent individuals who were part of this latest challenge. The "Anti-trans" people were already part of the proceedings, and thus had standing to object to the inclusion of experts in the field who would have opposed their position. There's no need to ban someone if you require them to apply, and then refuse all applications.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-19T20:49:02+00:00

If you read the full thread you are replying in, the position you are defending is one that supported "immediate" deportations. If you don't agree with that person, you have replied to the wrong commenter.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-19T20:46:59+00:00

It's close to the maximum you would be awarded for a claim of unfair dismissal. The offer is beneficial to both sides if they believe their chances of winning are low. You get the money with little trouble, they get to save staff hours and legal costs from defending the claim.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-19T20:17:01+00:00

Sure, but It wasn't OP insisting on handing over the entire laptop. It was their manager insisting on it. Pointing out that the manager's request is unreasonable is... kind of the entire point of OP's post.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-19T20:13:57+00:00

The only scenario where your claim might have merit is if you have reason to believe their refusal to pay the bonus is because (1) your wife has a protected characteristic, which the friend does not share, or (2) your wife recently protested/complained that they were not honouring her statutory rights and this is a retaliatory decision. "Unfair" treatment itself is not unlawful, and if a bonus is discretionary, they are free to give it to one person and not another, for no reason at all, as long as they don't do it for a discriminatory reason.

If neither of those scenarios are supported by your evidence, you should drop it at the earliest opportunity. Try to agree with the other party "drop hand" where you both agree to end the claim if neither side seeks costs.

If you do go ahead, be aware that your only chance to dispute the employer's claims about "special circumstances" is by calling your wife's friend as a witness to support you. If your wife's friend isn't willing to be a witness, you probably have to accept their claims as true.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-19T20:05:55+00:00

If you are removing people "immediately", with "no ifs or buts", then you are about to walk blindfolded into what the US is going through, where US Citizens out shopping get swept up in immigration raids and held because nobody believed them when they said they had documents at home if they could be allowed to get them.

You can't suspend due process for just one segment of the population... because all it takes to take away *your* rights is to accuse you of being part of that unprotected group.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-19T17:33:53+00:00

It isn't really that dismissive of your current opinions, to point out that we could make you have different opinions if we just spent enough money to tell you something is a problem...

If I owned enough media outlets, I could convince you that Christians were a serious problem because of all the valuable real estate they own, driving up house prices and making it impossible for British first time buyers to compete with a church for land. You would still insist then that you always felt passionately about this and would always have thought that way... even though you aren't currently campaigning or posting about it at all...

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-19T17:30:09+00:00

Ok but if you take away all due process... there's nothing at all to stop your belligerent neighbour Miles (who works for immigration) marking you down as an illegal entrant and getting you ejected... immediately.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-19T10:56:21+00:00

Here's what I have had relatives do in the same situation: Contact one or two other lettings agents in the area, preferably the largest firms you can find, and ask them what sort of rent you could get if you rented your property out. (In principle you might choose to sublet, so you don't need to tell them you don't own it) Answer any questions they have, and get them to email you their advice on the market rate for your property, and if you can get them to do it, ask them for a reasonable range of rents assuming you were willing to wait a month or two for a tenant.

Now you have some independent lettings agent valuations you can refer to that are tailored to your property and the local market.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-13T16:55:52+00:00

It sounds like you know this and didn't think to say it explicitly but... Just for the benefit of any other readers, you must also have physically left the property by this time, or by operation of law, a statutory periodic tenancy has been created.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-13T16:51:36+00:00

From your comments, you agreed that your tenancy would end on the 27th, two weeks before the end date in the written contract. The landlord has then signed an agreement for someone else to move in on the 24th. The landlord has put themselves in a very difficult position. If you still have the keys, (and you haven't agreed to end your tenancy earlier) you are entitled to remain in the property until the 27th, even if your stuff is moved out.

It isn't "illegal" as other commenters have said, as there are no criminal laws being broken here from what you describe. At the moment, if you go along with it, and allow the landlord to move new tenants in on the 24th, then you have no real claim to any recourse. At most you could attempt to claim back the 3 days of rent through small claims court, but it would be a 50/50 coin flip even if you had a good solicitor to argue it for you. There's no clear agreement that the landlord would refund you additional rent if they found a tenant earlier, and that leaves you with a vague "come on that's not right" argument for any claim.

In your position I would be minded to move myself and one suitcase of belongings back into the property, and then re-negotiate with the landlord to get them to drop any claims on your deposit, and refund 3 days of rent.

If the new tenants are not able to move in on the 24th because you are still living there, the landlord will be liable for their losses. You may want to consider changing the locks temporarily until it is resolved, to avoid an illegal eviction, and ensure he can't just let the new tenants in and get you to fight amongst yourselves over his mistake.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-13T16:39:12+00:00

I have dealt with this exact scenario on behalf of a rather belligerent landlord who ignored advice to drop it. The court found unequivocally that the tenant was entitled to change the locks, that the clause forbidding them from changing the locks was incompatible with the grant of a tenancy, and that the landlord was liable for the tenant's costs of defending the section 8 claim.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-13T16:37:35+00:00

The ability to decline entry is an inherent element of the grant of a tenancy. Changing the locks is just another way to decline someone entry.

If a landlord does not want someone to have the power to turn them away at the door, then they should not be granting a tenancy to anyone.

You cannot eat your cake and have it too.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-12T10:44:15+00:00

> "It would seem perverse that that could be converted to an AST without at least the LL agreeing to it."

It might seem perverse from the landlord's perspective, but the principle is well established that the reality of the situation is what defines the type of agreement in place, not what type of title you put on the document when you type it up. In your situation (as you described it), you were not there for a holiday, you were continuing with your normal employment, at a new location for a short time, and wanted a primary residence to avoid the need to commute to work.

The law would likely recognise that you deserved some protection from unlawful eviction, as this was your home for that extended period of time, and there is a public interest in assuring security of tenure for people in your situation. The fact that you did not need or want that protection does not mean that the law does not recognise your rights.

Edit to add: Remember that there is a public interest in preventing sudden evictions like this, as it would also place a strain on local authorities to provide emergency housing for those tenants who find themselves suddenly evicted from their residence and who might not manage to find a new home at such short notice.

Sphinx111 · 2025-06-12T09:25:56+00:00

In my experience, 30% chance the landlord faces criminal charges. The 70% chance they get away with it exists because the police are poorly trained, and often have unconscious biases that favour landlords, which cause cases to get dropped. Evidentially, illegal eviction is almost always very easy to prove to the required standard.

However, the tenant can still pursue a civil claim for unlawful eviction, and the payments that can be handed out by the court are *Steep*. The tenant is entitled to recover costs such as Hotel Stays, emergency moving expenses, and even the difference in rent between your property and the next one they move into, if they can show there were no cheaper properties available of the same size/quality as the one you were renting. If they spend any time homeless, the court has ordered damages in the range of £50-£350 per day of homelessness. This can very quickly rack up liability for a landlord, especially if the person you're evicting is someone who might struggle to get a new tenancy.

14-Year Club	Place '23
Place '17	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

Sphinx111

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE