What's the likelihood of being evicted in this case?

deadendwaterfall

Let's say for example you rent somewhere with a stipulation of 'no DSS', fair enough, you aren't on any benefits and have a job.

Then, you fall on hard times and lose your job and go onto benefits. Can the landlord give you a short period of time to find another job or evict you if you don't find another job in that short period of time, or does the 'no benefits tenants' thing only apply at the time of applying to be a tenant?

Also, do landlords with the 'no benefits tenants' rule regularly demand proof from their tenants that they are still in employment throughout their tenancy?

Also, can landlords retroactively apply a 'no benefits tenants' clause during the tenancy when there wasn't one at the start of the agreement?

Finally, has anyone here had experience from any of this?

Comms69

DSS hasn't existed for decades..


But no, the eviction process is the same ie 6-9 months...

davidmcn

deadendwaterfall wrote: »

does the 'no benefits tenants' thing only apply at the time of applying to be a tenant?

Yes, in the same way that they don't force you to keep the same job, and mortgage lenders don't demand to see your payslips every month during your mortgage.

G_M

On the other hand if on application for the tenancy you give your name as Mr deadendwaterfall, and then during the tenancy have a sex-change, you will have 10 days to pack up and leave.

theartfullodger

deadendwaterfall wrote: »

................. or does the 'no benefits tenants' thing only apply at the time of applying to be a tenant?.............

Well, that would depend exactly how things are worded: So, if for example tenancy agreement stated "tenant and all family members are not permitted to receive any benefit or welfare payment from the state, and must always wear a top hat when speaking to landlord" and tenant then breaks both clearly the landlord can issue an s8g12 notice to tenant (breach of tenancy): Entirely legal 1st step to eviction. See
https://www.legalforlandlords.co.uk/section-8-grounds-for-eviction/
- expires after 2 weeks.

However......
a) since MOST UK adults are in receipt of at least one benefit (CB, WTC, JSA, ESA, state pension, HB, PiP, DLA, etc etc etc etc..) any such a stupid landlord would be severely restricting his market to less than 50% of possible punters.... dumb.....
b) I'm fairly confident no judge would grant a possession order for, say, starting to receive Child Benefit when a baby arrives....
c) I'm 100% certain no judge would grant a possession order for a tenant declining to wear a top hat when speaking to his landlord.

Artful: Wicked capitalist landlord: In receipt of 6 benefits (...old...)

NB The DSS was dissolved in 2001 - see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Social_Security_(United_Kingdom)

Cakeguts

I don't think it will make any difference at all as long as you pay the rent that you are contracted to pay and don't decide to pay less because you are getting less money. The problems are only going to start if you don't pay the rent you have agreed to pay and don't move if you can no longer afford to live in the property.



The reason why landlords are wary of housing benefit is because if the local housing allowance is £100 less per month than the rent and they can't see how the tenant can come up with the difference they suspect that there are going to be rent arrears almost straight away.

Davesnave

Comms69 wrote: »

DSS hasn't existed for decades..

Doesn't stop ignorant landlords/agents writing it on their ads.


In horticulture, Calla lilies were renamed Zantedeschia well over 100 years ago, but guess what many florists call them!

Morbier

I always understood 'no DSS' (yes, I know an outdated term, but it still persists) to mean that the LL doesn't want tenants who rely solely on housing benefit for the rent.

I'm renting and don't have a job (hurray!) as I'm retired, so the income I declare when applying for a tenancy is my State Pension and my private pensions. Never have any problems as they can see these are guaranteed income sources (unlike a salary?).

I have read that some LLs are bound by the terms of their mortgages, which can state no tenants whose only means of paying the rent is Housing Benefit. Is this true? That might make a difference.

G_M

Morbier wrote: »

I have read that some LLs are bound by the terms of their mortgages, which can state no tenants whose only means of paying the rent is Housing Benefit. Is this true? That might make a difference.

Yes, some Buy To Let mortgages, and indeed some landlord insurance policies, specify what category of tenant can/can't be granted a tenancy

(though I believe there is some current ongoing debate about the legality of this. Potential illegal discrimination.)