Reasons for "No DSS" in most private let's??

DVardysShadow

business_man wrote: »

They keep removing my posts? So much for "free speech".



It wasn't a spam, it cetainly wasn't illegal, don't see anything offensive, no race involved and no libel involved.

It was offensive and you were roundly dealt with. I personally think that the forum team out of cowardice have done you an undeserved favour by removing your post - far better to have left it.

I have a fair deal of disappointment that someone reported you to abuse, because I think you are big enough to take the consequences of having the post left in place.

DVardysShadow

Cpcompany wrote: »

Unfortunately I did start a thread and it didn't get a response. My query was slightly different but related to the same problem I have.

Then go back to your original thread and bump it. This discussion is about a general question of why 'No DSS'. Your query is irrelevant to that question and disrupts that conversation.

If you go back to your old thread and add your new query, that would be better - People here do like to have all the information on 1 thread.

HappyMJ

It_can_get_better wrote: »

That's right, in an AST there is no contest. There is no defence to a s21 and the judge has to award possession as long as the correct procedure has been followed.

BigAunty wrote: »

Not my understanding - if an S21 is served correctly, the judge has no discretion whatsoever and must award possession to the landlord. No fault on the part of the tenant needs to be defined , it's really a no fault notice. At most, the tenant may be able to get a stay of a few extra weeks or so before the order takes effect if they can provide a convincing reason to delay the date by a modest degree. The debate between tenant and judge that you describe is not one that I'm aware of.

It's a bit different if the landlord serves an S8 notice on the grounds of arrears which have to be a certain amount at the time of serving and the court case, proof needs to be provided, plus other grounds are discretionary (such as anti social behaviour, persistent late payments) and judges tend to be more sympathetic to tenants, apparently.

tbs624 wrote: »

As posts 24 and 25 have said, if LL is using a correctly served S21 s/he *will* be granted repossession of the property.

You are all correct but I gather none of you actually have gone through the process. If you actually go to the hearings (which many people rarely do) you can get a judge to grant a suspended possession order. So what I said is correct but I failed to mention the word suspended order. From the time the possession order is granted the judge may make it a suspended possession order which will delay action by several weeks and will still take a couple of months to actually be forced out by a bailiff and that is the main reason that LL's don't like tenants on "DSS" as the tenant must physically wait until evicted by a bailiff before being granted emergency accomodation by the council.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction/court_action_for_eviction/court_orders

robatwork

DVardysShadow wrote: »

It was offensive and you were roundly dealt with. I personally think that the forum team out of cowardice have done you an undeserved favour by removing your post - far better to have left it.

I have a fair deal of disappointment that someone reported you to abuse, because I think you are big enough to take the consequences of having the post left in place.

Interest.
Piqued.

It_can_get_better

HappyMJ wrote: »

You are all correct but I gather none of you actually have gone through the process. If you actually go to the hearings (which many people rarely do) you can get a judge to grant a suspended possession order. So what I said is correct but I failed to mention the word suspended order. From the time the possession order is granted the judge may make it a suspended possession order which will delay action by several weeks and will still take a couple of months to actually be forced out by a bailiff and that is the main reason that LL's don't like tenants on "DSS" as the tenant must physically wait until evicted by a bailiff before being granted emergency accomodation by the council.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction/court_action_for_eviction/court_orders

The judge has no discretion to suspend a possession order sought under S21 in an AST. Yes, in exceptional hardship cases they can postpone it for 6 weeks, but that is not a suspended possession order, the legislation doesn't allow for it.

HA1988 S9

Extended discretion of court in possession claims.


(1)Subject to subsection (6) below, the court may adjourn for such period or periods as it thinks fit proceedings for possession of a dwelling-house let on an assured tenancy.

(2)On the making of an order for possession of a dwelling-house let on an assured tenancy or at any time before the execution of such an order, the court, subject to subsection (6) below, may”

(a)stay or suspend execution of the order, or

(b)postpone the date of possession,

for such period or periods as the court thinks just.

(3)On any such adjournment as is referred to in subsection (1) above or on any such stay, suspension or postponement as is referred to in subsection (2) above, the court, unless it considers that to do so would cause exceptional hardship to the tenant or would otherwise be unreasonable, shall impose conditions with regard to payment by the tenant of arrears of rent (if any) and rent F1... and may impose such other conditions as it thinks fit.

(4)If any such conditions as are referred to in subsection (3) above are complied with, the court may, if it thinks fit, discharge or rescind any such order as is referred to in subsection (2) above.

(5)F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5A). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(6)This section does not apply if the court is satisfied that the landlord is entitled to possession of the dwelling-house”

(a)on any of the grounds in Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act; or

(b)by virtue of subsection (1) or subsection (4) of section 21 below

zaksmum

A friend of O/H has several houses he lets, but will not now let to a new tenant on housing benefit.

This is because the rent gets paid directly to the tenant now, and in EVERY single case in the last two years, no rent was paid to him by the tenant for the first two months.

After this time, the tenant can be served notice to quit so the rent - in some cases - does start getting paid.

In one case though the tenant stayed for 13 months, paid not one penny in rent then trashed the place before he moved out.

tbs624

HappyMJ wrote: »

You are all correct but I gather none of you actually have gone through the process.

..."gather" away HappyMJ

DVardysShadow

robatwork wrote: »

Interest.
Piqued.

He basically said that DSS tenants were scum. Pure cowardice on the part of the forum team to remove it.

tbs624

aaah - thanks for clarifying DVS.

That sort of comment, or a [edit: variant] of it, is a recurrent theme from the poster in question. He has apparently had a bitter experience and it clearly ( in his world) makes him an authority on how all benefit claimants will behave.

He seems to forget that many claimants have paid into the system and that they are not some kind of homogeneous rent-dodging, property-trashing form of underclass.

3cardMonty

brit1234 wrote: »

The housing benefit caps have put some landlords off whilst others don't like the payment going to the renter rather than straight to them.

The housing benefit caps are still quite high. The universal credit coming in next year with no more than 500 per week capped benefit per household will lower the amount able to go towards rent even more.

But it is not hard for a tenant to just not tell a prospective LL that they are on benfits, as long as they can come up with the deposit.