Rental Fraud

In the case of R v Priestley [2026] EWCA Crim 1284, the Appellant had been advertising property for rent via an online portal. After a potential occupier contacted him, he would offer than a tenancy of a flat and send them a tenancy agreement to sign. He required a deposit to be paid into a nominated bank account. In some cases, he also required payment of rent in advance. Shortly before the potential occupier was due to move in, the Appellant would inform that the property was suddenly unavailable due to, e.g. a leak or flood or similar emergency. In the majority of cases, he retained some or all of the monies paid and refused to engage with requests for refunds. He used the monies to fund his gambling addiction.

He was charged under the Fraud Act 2006 and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. In total, the evidence suggested he had received 78 payments, totalling £77,406.15. As some people made more than one payment, it was unclear how many had been the victims of his fraud but at least 34 victims were identified by the police. The Crown Court sentenced him to 35 months imprisonment. He appealed, arguing that the sentence was excessive and, moreover, that any sentence should have been suspended.

The appeal was allowed in part. The sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the mitigating factors (early plea, previous good character, positive references from gambling addition charities). The appropriate sentence was therefore 24 months. It was not, however, appropriate to suspend the sentence. The fraud was long-standing and sophisticated such that imprisonment was the appropriate sanction.

Oliver Kew

Published on 11/11/2026