Appealing a*possession order

[efpom]

Re post #45:
ON 1 My comment: The OP published two docs at post#3. “"..and upon it being found that the Defendant did enter and remain there as a trespasser.”" That is a finding of fact by the court.
ON 2 My comment: What use the landowner intends to make after the trespasser is removed is not a lawful reason for the trespasser to defy a court order to "“forthwith give possession of the land and buildings"” docs at post#3
On 3 MY comment: A judge does not give legal advice to either claimant or defendant. It follows that the judge who made the order here was not under any obligation to mention in the order directed at the trespasser the fact that legislation makes it a criminal offence for a trespasser to occupy residential premises.

[Ashley Hill]

Re post #45:
ON 1 My comment: The OP published two docs at post#3. “"..and upon it being found that the Defendant did enter and remain there as a trespasser.”" That is a finding of fact by the court.
ON 2 My comment: What use the landowner intends to make after the trespasser is removed is not a lawful reason for the trespasser to defy a court order to "“forthwith give possession of the land and buildings"” docs at post#3
On 3 MY comment: A judge does not give legal advice to either claimant or defendant. It follows that the judge who made the order here was not under any obligation to mention in the order directed at the trespasser the fact that legislation makes it a criminal offence for a trespasser to occupy residential premises.

and still not proof that it was residential property anyway
Nevermind!

[PallasAthena]

Ashley Hill your thead has has assumed for nearly 50 posts that your eviction is from a residential property. If you are now suggesting it wasn't a residential property you have seriously misled us and I would not be surprised if posters are reluctant to give you further help.

[Ashley Hill]

Ashley Hill your thead has has assumed for nearly 50 posts that your eviction is from a residential property.

How is that then; how have you come to the presumption?

[efpom]

The Possession Order actually stated:

A person may have the capacity to litigate but, nevertheless may well have difficulty in processing information. The reason I say that is because the order stated as follows:

“Upon hearing from Counsel for the Claimant and the Defendant in person
And upon the Court considering the capacity assessment provided by the Defendant dated 19 January 2026, confirming the Defendant has the capacity to litigate
To the defendant
The court has ordered you to leave the property by the date stated in paragraph 1” – the sealed order date being 4 April 26.
The claimant, in fact, later varied that date to 13 April 26.

The OP requested advice on how to appeal that order, but was, and remains, unable or unwilling to furnish any information re: grounds of appeal, except for stating that the judge during the hearing mentioned “that the claimant will assist the defendant with rehousing And this is NOT in the order” -which, for the reasons that I gave previously, is not a viable ground of appeal.

The OP has become querulous when receiving information which is not good news for the situation the he/she is in. In my experience, that is driven by fear not logic when someone is faced with the real prospect of losing the roof over his/her head -as is the case here.

I wish the OP the very best of luck.

[Tofros]

How is that then; how have you come to the presumption?

It is a logical assumption that the eviction would make you “homeless” given your disclosure that the judge mentioned in the hearing that the local authority would “assist you with rehousing” …….and therefore logical to assume that the property subject to the possession order was a home and thus a residential property.

The judge stated in the order that you were/are a trespasser in the property. You may disagree, but that is what the judge decided. It is of course possible that you have been living as a trespasser in some other type of property.

People can only volunteer assistance based on the disclosures you make and documents you upload. Rather than just tell people they have made a wrong assumption, help them to help you by correcting the thread with the full facts.

[PallasAthena]

How is that then; how have you come to the presumption?

Because your complaint has been in regard to "rehousing". Rehousing wouldn't arise if the eviction wasn't from somewhere that was housing. If you keep important information secret you won't get useful advice.

[atticus]

Post #3!

I have uploaded copies of [t]he order. But during the hearing the judge said that "the claimant will assist the defendant with rehousing" And this is NOT in the order

[efpom]

The stark reality is this:
The OP is a trespasser.
The landowner has an order of possession.
The landowner has stated that if the trespasser is still on the premises after 13 April 26 he will employ High Court Enforcement agents to remove the OP from the premises.
It is only a matter of time until that occurs.
It makes no difference to that whether the premises are residential or non residential.
When the OP is made homeless that will be for the OP, and only the OP, to solve.
The OP is wrong if he/she believes that lodging an appeal means that he/she can lawfully continue to occupy the premises until the appeal is heard.

[Ashley Hill]

The Possession Order actually stated:

A person may have the capacity to litigate but, nevertheless may well have difficulty in processing information. The reason I say that is because the order stated as follows:

“Upon hearing from Counsel for the Claimant and the Defendant in person
And upon the Court considering the capacity assessment provided by the Defendant dated 19 January 2026, confirming the Defendant has the capacity to litigate
To the defendant
The court has ordered you to leave the property by the date stated in paragraph 1” – the sealed order date being 4 April 26.
The claimant, in fact, later varied that date to 13 April 26.

The OP requested advice on how to appeal that order, but was, and remains, unable or unwilling to furnish any information re: grounds of appeal, except for stating that the judge during the hearing mentioned “that the claimant will assist the defendant with rehousing And this is NOT in the order” -which, for the reasons that I gave previously, is not a viable ground of appeal.

The OP has become querulous when receiving information which is not good news for the situation the he/she is in. In my experience, that is driven by fear not logic when someone is faced with the real prospect of losing the roof over his/her head -as is the case here.

I wish the OP the very best of luck.

With respect; your now starting to talk nonsense!

*Edit* Buy was of deviating from the facts

[Ashley Hill]

It is a logical assumption that the eviction would make you “homeless” given your disclosure that the judge mentioned in the hearing that the local authority would “assist you with rehousing” …….and therefore logical to assume that the property subject to the possession order was a home and thus a residential property.

That is a presumption and nothing written on the paper work. there for presumptions that I have committed a crime and hence (another presumption) I am not entitled to appeal the order is nonsense!

[Ashley Hill]

Because your complaint has been in regard to "rehousing". Rehousing wouldn't arise if the eviction wasn't from somewhere that was housing. If you keep important information secret you won't get useful advice.

It could of been anything from an old shop to an old petrol station that I could of been living in. it is irrelevant because it dose not form part of the order!

[PallasAthena]

You are posting contradictory nonsense now and wasting people's time when they have been trying to help you. If you don't like the advice you have been given here maybe you can find advice you prefer elsewhere.

[Ashley Hill]

You are posting contradictory nonsense now and wasting people's time when they have been trying to help you. If you don't like the advice you have been given here maybe you can find advice you prefer elsewhere.

That is your opinion Sir. But anyone with due diligence can see what is going on hear!

[islandgirl]

Having followed this thread for some time I must confess I now have absolutely no idea what is going on. Can the OP spell it out so we can all understand and not waste any more time?