Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
use and occupation
Just as an update - we did get this issue resolved and UC did pay (we used the permission to occupy rule and also provided the link to the discussion around Mesne profits where it is quite clearly stated that such issues are covered by ‘permission to occupy’. Our decision was changed and HC awarded. The DWP guidance in my view is incorrect as nowhere in the regulations does it mention anything about Mesne profits being excluded. Not had any more of these since but sure they will arise from time to time
Are there any implications in all of this for people subject to Suspended Possession Orders?
Are there any implications in all of this for people subject to Suspended Possession Orders?
I don’t think so.
At one time, where an SPO was granted and breached by the tenant - the tenancy immediately came to an end and the tenant became a “tolerated trespasser” who had no right to remain in the property. Because mesne profits are damages paid by a trespasser to a landowner, perhaps it could be said that a tolerated trespasser would be excluded from UC housing costs.
However, as a result of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, this is no longer the case. A tenant remains a tenant until the possession order is executed against him (i.e. the bailiffs change the locks and remove him from the property). The concept of a “tolerated trespasser” doesn’t really exist any longer. Someone subject to an SPO (or even an outright possession order) remains liable for rent and therefore eligible for UC housing costs until the locks are changed.
(With apologies to any housing advisers reading for what is probably a very poor explanation of that whole saga).
Thanks. It’s been a long time since I did any work in that subject area and I was not at all sure.