Appealing a*possession order

[Ashley Hill]

Hello there

Is it possible to do this? As what the judge said while drafting up the order and what is now on the written order are not the same!

I emailed the courts about this but they have not answered. I also asked for a transaction of the recording. but I do not understand what they are saying. listed below is a copy of there email

Thanks

---------------------
Thank you for your transcript request which has been processed to your selected transcriber either electronically or through the post. This will take a few days to reach the transcriber if sent by post.


You have requested access to the audio this is not allowed unless approved by a judge. Please see the attached documents with more information. You will need to make an application to a judge to release the audio. The release of audio is only done in "exceptional" circumstances


What happens now?

The transcriber will be in contact with you once they receive the request to give you an estimate cost for completion which relates to the timeframe selected on the EX107. Please communicate with your chosen company as to further updates. As the Court cannot provide updates on drafting transcripts.
Please note that the Transcript team operate through correspondence only**

The Transcript Team

[Ashley Hill]

PS the claimant has emailed me stating

Please see attached order for possession. I will be instructing the High Court sheriff to act if you do not leave by Monday 13 April at 10am.

[Ashley Hill]

I have uploaded copies of 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 phrase “and upon it being found that the Defendant did enter and remain there as a trespasser” does seem to indicate that you never had the right to occupy, hence the unusual terms of the Order “The Defendant shall forthwith give possession of the land and buildings..” rather than the usual 14 days to quit.

Such a finding by the court would make it nigh on impossible to apply to the court for a suspension of the eviction warrant being threatened by the claimant if "you do not leave by Monday 13 April at 10am."

The Order was valid from the moment the judge pronounced it in court at the possession hearing of 23 March 26
The sealed Order is dated 4th April 26. The "sealed order" is necessary for enforcement.

[Ashley Hill]

The phrase “and upon it being found that the Defendant did enter and remain there as a trespasser” does seem to indicate that you never had the right to occupy, hence the unusual terms of the Order “The Defendant shall forthwith give possession of the land and buildings..” rather than the usual 14 days to quit.

Such a finding by the court would make it nigh on impossible to apply to the court for a suspension of the eviction warrant being threatened by the claimant if "you do not leave by Monday 13 April at 10am."

The Order was valid from the moment the judge pronounced it in court at the possession hearing of 23 March 26
The sealed Order is dated 4th April 26. The "sealed order" is necessary for enforcement.

But dose never had the right to occupy change the rules that I am not entitled to the 14 day notice and dose it stop me appealing against it?

[efpom]

A 14-day period in tenant evictions refers to the time given in a court-ordered Possession Order for tenants of a dwelling to leave.

You were never a tenant. You were on entry, and remain, a trespasser.

On what appeal grounds do you argue that as a trespasser you are entitled to remain in occupation of the land and buildings that are the subject of the court order?

[Ashley Hill]

A 14-day period in tenant evictions refers to the time given in a court-ordered Possession Order for tenants of a dwelling to leave.

Can I see that in writing please?[/QUOTE]

On what appeal grounds do you argue that as a trespasser you are entitled to remain in occupation of the land and buildings that are the subject of the court order?

please reread my first post

[efpom]

Re your question see s.89(1) Housing Act 1980
Re your answer to my query – I cannot see any point of law in your writing which could assist you. However when the transcript of the possession hearing is available, that may reveal some error of law made by the judge.

You may find the links below useful:
https://england.shelter.org.uk/profe...er#reference-2

https://england.shelter.org.uk/profe...viction_rights

Good Luck.

[Ashley Hill]

Re your question see s.89(1) Housing Act 1980

It is not quite clear but it dose look like they must give 2 weeks notice, or 6 if you can prove hardship


----------- 89Restriction on discretion of court in making orders for possession of land.


(1)Where a court makes an order for the possession of any land in a case not falling within the exceptions mentioned in subsection (2) below, the giving up of possession shall not be postponed (whether by the order or any variation, suspension or stay of execution) to a date later than fourteen days after the making of the order, unless it appears to the court that exceptional hardship would be caused by requiring possession to be given up by that date; and shall not in any event be postponed to a date later than six weeks after the making of the order.

**EDIT** In part 2 of the act, dose not specify a trespasser as who this may not apply to

[efpom]

Housing Act 1980 is of no help to you because you are not and never have been a tenant.
See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...1/introduction.

If, in fact, your eviction from the subject land would make you homeless, as a trespasser threatened with eviction you may wish to contact your local authority and in doing so remind it of Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) which explains the legal duties owed by local authorities to homeless people or those threatened with homelessness within 56 days,

[Ashley Hill]

Housing Act 1980 is of no help to you because you are not and never have been a tenant.
See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...1/introduction.

But that is only one part of the act, and dose not specify that the entire act is based upon that chapter

as a trespasser threatened with eviction you may wish to contact your local authority and in doing so remind it of Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) which explains the legal duties owed by local authorities to homeless people or those threatened with homelessness within 56 days,

is this what you mean?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/52/part/VII
if so; then i do not see anything in it that, that surgests the local council have a duty of care to rehouse said person

[efpom]

It seems to me, from your writing at #3 that the reason you believe you did not get a fair hearing is because during the hearing the judge said that "the claimant will assist the defendant with rehousing" And this is NOT in the order."

In my view, the judge was quite correct not to do so, because there is no legislation which imposes a duty on any landowner to rehouse a trespasser following eviction.

However, from that remark by the judge, I discern that the landowner (claimant) is, in fact, a local authority.

If I am right about that, while not entitled to rehousing as a trespasser, you can still apply to your local authority as homeless. The authority must accept a homeless application if there is reason to believe a person is homeless, and it’s duty is spelled out in Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, which does not impose any duty of care to rehouse.

I hope that my writing has been of some use to you, but I think it would be wise for you seek advice from Shelter, Citizens Advice or a practicing solicitor.

[PallasAthena]

Are you certain that when the judge said "the claimant will assist the defendant with rehousing" he was making that part of the Order? It sounds to me as if it might simply have been a reference to the local authority's general duties in relation to homeless people.

If that was all the judge was saying it doesn't need to be mentioned in the Order because the judge was not imposing any greater obligation on the local authority than it already has under under the Housing Act.

The transcript may help you when you get it but unfortunately it seems the eviction will already have taken place as the council is saying it could happen any time after 10.00am today.

Let us know what happens.

[efpom]

For completeness I add:
The only order open to the court, once it has found that the defendant to the claim has no right to enter the land or to remain there, is a forthwith possession order. McPhail v Persons Unknown [1973] Ch 447.

[HariSeldon]

It is not quite clear but it dose look like they must give 2 weeks notice, or 6 if you can prove hardship

I think you are seeing what you want to see, not what it actually says.

the giving up of possession shall not be postponed ... to a date later than fourteen days after the making of the order,

I have not read the whole Act but the section you quote says that notice can not be more than fourteen days, it does not say notice has to be fourteen days. So notice of 0 days is perfectly legal according to that section...