> "Anti-fraud software had found Harman's first name in reviews and connected the listing to him."

Pretty interesting to me...

> "It's illegal for council tenants to sublet their homes and we carry out tenancy checks, as well as monitoring short-term letting websites for any potential illegal sublets."

Also pretty interesting to me... it's nice to see that the councils in London are using their own technological advances to fight illegal activity like this!

And it's lucky that they've now paid off a tenth of the cost of developing the software.

The source article (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tenant-fined-100-000-and-...) states that the council also have a possession order, meaning the host is also losing their home.

so she lost nothing. good for her, bad for the rest of us.

others can do the same, at worst, you lose your profits.

I'm very much agreed generally, but in the case of somebody hustling by renting out their council flat, I'm not sure that the worst punishment is useful. This is probably not a wealthy person, and the damage done is theoretical and marginal. Making them pay it back entirely actually might be an onerous burden, it's probably mostly spent. I might reduce the amount by some token per night rented representing having to find somewhere else to sleep or having to share your space with a stranger.

Punishing financial crimes to a degree that could have a deterrent effect should start at the top, not at the bottom. Also, IMO, if the UK actually started doing this, its economy might collapse.

It could be worse as well because either they haven't declared this income and now HMRC will be after them or they have and they might not be able to get a refund from HMRC. I assume this would be considered a business loss and I'm not sure if you can refund past taxes against a present loss.

>should start at the top, not at the bottom

then it will never start.