Review of Possession Claim procedures

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Evictions:

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is consulting on the enforcement
of possession orders and the consistency and alignment of procedures carried
out in the county court and high court. A consultation questionnaire for
landlords’ views is accessible below.

What are the Civil
Procedure Rules (CPR)?

These are the rules of civil procedure used by the Court of
Appeal, High Court of Justice, and County Courts in civil cases in England and
Wales. They apply to all cases commenced after 26 April 1999, and largely
replace the Rules of the Supreme Court and the County Court Rules.

The CPR were designed to improve access to justice by making
legal proceedings cheaper, quicker, and easier to understand for non-lawyers.
As a consequence of this, many archaic legal terms are replaced with “plain
English” equivalents, such as “claimant” for
“plaintiff” and “witness summons” for “subpoena”.

For anyone contemplating legal action, professional or layman, these are a handy set of rules and guidance which if studied conscientiously will considerably increase the chances of success of the action. For possession claims, by far the most common reason why landlords contemplate action, see Part 55 of the CPRs.

The Consultation

An issue with the Civil Procedure Rules, which are judged to
be unsatisfactory, is that of the enforcement of possession orders, says the
committee.  The problem is that there
currently exist two “differing, and anomalous, systems� in the High Court and
in the County Court, the committee thinks. 

“In the County Court, there is a system of administrative
action and court-appointed bailiffs, involving substantial delays (to the
detriment of property owners) albeit with limited costs, and a non-statutory
informal procedure for occupiers to be given advance notice of evictions. 

“In the High Court, there is a system of judicial
involvement and external High Court Enforcement Officers, with less delay, but
more cost, and a more limited provision for occupiers to be given advance
notice of proceedings. 

“The differences between the two systems and the weaknesses of each, particularly in terms of delay, cost and limited notice to those being evicted (and who may have rights to apply to the court), have been noted in a number of both historic and more recent judicial decisions and in recent reports, including The Final Report of The (Briggs) Civil Courts Structure Review which recommended that there should be at least harmonisation of the operation processes of the enforcing agents.�

Finally, this statement should be of interest to landlords:

“The CPRC recognises
that there is a balance to be struck; for example, on the one hand there may be
a landlord who is owed several month’s unpaid rent and who may also be in debt
as a result of the rent arrears, and on the other hand tenants or other
occupiers who ought to know if and when they are to be evicted to enable them
to make other provision or make their own representations to the court.  All parties should be treated fairly and with
respect.  Although this issue arises
mainly in the residential context, it extends also to commercial premises but
where different considerations may be thought to arise.�

Landlords should take the opportunity to give their views to the consultation committee by completing the consultation questionnaire here

©1999 – Present | Parkmatic Publications Ltd. All rights reserved | LandlordZONE® – Review of Possession Claim procedures | LandlordZONE.

View Full Article: Review of Possession Claim procedures

If you enjoyed this article please consider sharing it!