Appealing a*possession order

[efpom]

Why not contact the court yourself and ask it!

[Ashley Hill]

Why not contact the court yourself and ask it!

I have contacted them and not getting very far with it!

What they have said is as follows

I am unsure as to how long the process for an appeal will take but I will forward your email to the relevant colleagues to respond. As for the transcript at public expense this is pending your appeal having been issued.

If you wish to pay for the transcript yourself that may speed up the process.

So my reply to them is as follows

Im sorry but the fee for the recording is a ridiculous fee! As far as I can recall the last time I paid for one (differant type of court) was about £37
I think you should now reconsider the fees for this as it is delaying justice! and further more such a high fee will deter justice for the masses of other court cases

[Ashley Hill]

Now they are saying the following

The cost of a transcript of court hearing is dependent on the length of the transcript (number of pages of typed 'transcribed' audio) and the urgency of the required turnaround time for the transcript to the court user. The payment of a transcript is made directly to the Transcription Company and not to the Court, therefore we cannot intervene in any issues with regards to costs at local Court level.

The transcription process is the same for all court users. As my colleagues have previously stated public expense for a transcript can only be approved by a judge in special circumstances, and the relevant EX105 form should be submitted, for example, if you are issuing an appeal of your case at court (and the transcript is in support of the appeal) . I believe my colleagues have explained the application process and you are now in touch with our appeals team.

Please note that to issue an appeal at court there is a fee attached, I believe this may be the fee you are referring to in your email below? Similarly to the explanation above, there is a processing and administration process that these applications are required to undergo by court staff, and therefore it is not a free of charge service. Fees costs are set nationally and as such we cannot intervene in any issues with regards to fee rates at a local Court level.

I hope the above has been of some assistance and allows you to move forward with your request to court.

[efpom]

You may find the link below of interest:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ngs/cbp-10592/

You may also find cpr 52.14 of interest:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...s/part52#52.14

[Ashley Hill]

You may find the link below of interest:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ngs/cbp-10592/

Looks like that debate is 5-6 weeks to late now!

However it did state
Civil cases

According to the government guidance, an application for transcripts may be made for all or part of a hearing. Such an application will generally require payment of a fee. Where an applicant cannot afford the fee, they may get a free transcript for “a civil or family court hearing” if there are “special circumstances” such as if they “need the transcript urgently but cannot afford to pay”.

Parties seeking to appeal a judgment may also request that the costs of transcripts be paid at public expense, under part 52.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, by completing Form EX105 (PDF). Before making a direction for transcripts to be issued at public expense for the purposes of an appeal, the court must be satisfied that:

• the requesting party qualifies for fee remission or is otherwise in such poor financial circumstances that the cost of obtaining a transcript would be an excessive burden; and
• it is necessary in the interests of justice for such a transcript to be obtained.

Which is exactlly what I have done; is filled the E105 form accross to them. But there is no idication hear as to a time limit

[Ashley Hill]

You may also find cpr 52.14 of interest:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...s/part52#52.14

Again they dont specify a time period

Variation of time in certain contempt proceedings

52.15A A defendant in contempt proceedings may apply to extend the time set out at rule 52.3A(1)(a) and (b)
To the top Stay^(GL)

52.16 Unless—

(a) the appeal court or the lower court orders otherwise; or

(b) the appeal is from the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal,

an appeal shall not operate as a stay of any order or decision of the lower court.

[efpom]

If I might make the following observations on your situation:

The general rule is that an appeal does not pause an order of the lower court pending a determination of the appeal. The effect in your situation is that the order of eviction is still valid.

However, both the lower court and the appeal court have an unfettered discretion to grant a stay pending an appeal. Clearly, the lower court did not exercise that discretion – it issued a forthwith order of eviction against you.

So, you are left with the appellate court.

If the appellate court believes that justice requires that the general rule of no stay be questioned, it will look at the merit of the appeal.

That is where I think you have a massive problem because of the finding of the lower court that you are a trespasser in residential premises. As such you have committed a criminal offence.

Your problem therefore is that you are asking the appellate court to side with you by ignoring the legislation that makes your trespass a criminal offence. As a matter of constitutional law no court is entitled to defy the will of Parliament. To do so, would be to reverse the result of the English civil war.

[Ashley Hill]

That is where I think you have a massive problem because of the finding of the lower court that you are a trespasser in residential premises. As such you have committed a criminal offence.

err no!

Your problem therefore is that you are asking the appellate court to side with you by ignoring the legislation that makes your trespass a criminal offence. As a matter of constitutional law no court is entitled to defy the will of Parliament. To do so, would be to reverse the result of the English civil war.

Again no!

[Ashley Hill]

However, both the lower court and the appeal court have an unfettered discretion to grant a stay pending an appeal. Clearly, the lower court did not exercise that discretion – it issued a forthwith order of eviction against you.


That is where I think you have a massive problem because of the finding of the lower court that you are a trespasser in residential premises. As such you have committed a criminal offence.

From this link
https://england.shelter.org.uk/profe..._a_court_order

A person with a right to occupy the property can lawfully enter and secure squatted premises without a court order, but only if there are no squatters present in the property opposed to her/his entry. However if a squatter does not leave after she is requested to do so by a 'displaced residential occupier' (DRO) or a 'protected intending occupier' (PIO), or someone acting on her/his behalf (see below for definitions), s/he will be committing a criminal offence.

It should be noted that, from 1 September 2012, squatting in a residential property is a criminal offence and a squatter can be arrested, for more information see the page Criminal offences and squatting. The existing civil procedures, set out on this page and on court action against trespassers , can still be used.

So what they are saying is that the legal ocupier or someone action on there behalf has to ask them to leave first

[PallasAthena]

The reference to asking a squatter to leaves applies to the criminal offence not to civil eviction proceedings. There is no such requirement listed on the "court action against trespassers" link in your post which sets out the procedure for eviction hearings.

[HariSeldon]

if a squatter does not leave after she is requested to do so by a 'displaced residential occupier' (DRO) or a 'protected intending occupier' (PIO), or someone acting on her/his behalf (see below for definitions), s/he will be committing a criminal offence.

So what they are saying is that the legal ocupier or someone action on there behalf has to ask them to leave first

I originally replied thinking this was a criminal case but regardless are you suggesting that you were never asked either verbally or in writing to vacate the premises?

[efpom]

The subject residential premises is owned by a local authority - a statutory corporation i.e. A legal person. Only a natural person can be a 'displaced residential occupier' (DRO) or a 'protected intending occupier' (PIO).

The local authority brought possession proceedings. There was a hearing. The court made a finding of fact that the OP was on entry a trespasser aka ‘squatter’, and continues to enjoy that status. That means here that the OP on entry committed a criminal offence and by continuing to occupy continues to commit that criminal offence.

The result of that hearing was that the local authority obtained a forthwith possession order.

The OP intends to appeal that order. In my view, as I stated in an earlier posting, the fact that the OP is committing a criminal offence is fatal to any such appeal. That is because no court hearing a civil matter will aid the commission of a criminal offence.

The OP has been told in writing by the local authority to quit no later than 10AM on 10 April 26 and if the OP remains in occupation after that time & date, it will escalate the matter to the High Court so as to retain High Court enforcement agents to forcibly remove the OP, with police assistance, if so required.

Today, if the OP is still in occupation he/she is living there on borrowed time and will be made homeless. When that happens , the OP will be entitled to approach the local authority to seek assistance from it about the OP’s then status of being homeless. The local authority has a statutory duty to provide that assistance. But that duty does not extend to providing the OP with local authority owned housing.

It occurs to me, wrongly perhaps, that because of the statutory duty I describe above, the OP may have the notion that he/she can continue in occupation of the current premises until granted a tenancy on it. That is most unlikely to happen.

[Ashley Hill]

The subject residential premises is owned by a local authority - a statutory corporation i.e. A legal person. Only a natural person can be a 'displaced residential occupier' (DRO) or a 'protected intending occupier' (PIO).

The local authority brought possession proceedings. There was a hearing. The court made a finding of fact that the OP was on entry a trespasser aka ‘squatter’, and continues to enjoy that status. That means here that the OP on entry committed a criminal offence and by continuing to occupy continues to commit that criminal offence.

The result of that hearing was that the local authority obtained a forthwith possession order.

The OP intends to appeal that order. In my view, as I stated in an earlier posting, the fact that the OP is committing a criminal offence is fatal to any such appeal. That is because no court hearing a civil matter will aid the commission of a criminal offence.
.

Now you are just twisting facts!

[efpom]

When contributing on this board I rely on the facts published by the poster seeking assistance and then apply my understanding of the law to those facts. The first 3 paragraphs of mine, reproduced in the above post, are facts published by the poster. The last paragraph is my view of the position the appellate court will take.

[Ashley Hill]

When contributing on this board I rely on the facts published by the poster seeking assistance and then apply my understanding of the law to those facts. The first 3 paragraphs of mine, reproduced in the above post, are facts published by the poster. The last paragraph is my view of the position the appellate court will take.

And did the poster state that
1. they where a trespasser/ squatter of residential property?
2. And as of such; the land owners wanted the property back to rehouse people (or them selfs)?
3. Is there anywhere in the order that states that the courts may refuse an appeal if a criminal matter has accurred? "without prejudice" of cource