Battling Against Possession

In an article in the Law Society Gazette of 7 December, District Judge Nic Madge considered the remedies open to a tenant, or former tenant, who has been evicted. After eviction there is no power to stay or suspend a warrant future. The evictee’s only remedies are (a) to have the original order set aside; or to show (b) the warrant was obtained by fraud; or (c) there has been ‘oppressive conduct’ by the landlord. Oppression must be in some way an abuse of process or unfair use of the court procedures. The categories are not closed. The author gives as examples: failure to invite an applicant who was in prison to apply for renewal of his housing benefit, then evicting him because of the consequent arrears; where a defendant who went to the court to apply to suspend a warrant was told there was no warrant, and it was executed the following morning; and a misleading statement that only payment in full could prevent eviction without any reference to the possibility of an application to the court, coupled with a letter from the bailiff advising the occupant of the date of eviction arriving during the eviction process itself. The article also considers the various grounds for stay, suspension and postponement of execution of a warrant; it also queries whether the provision is CCR Ord 26 rule 17 for landlords to apply for warrants to enforce a suspended order without giving notice to the defendant is Human Rights Act compliant. All good stuff.