|
|
Procedure
Rent arrears protocol
Pre-action protocol for possession and claims based on rent arrears.
A pre-action protocol for rent arrears came into force on 2 October 2006. It only applies to residential possession claims brought by social landlords which are based solely on rent arrears. It does not apply to long leases or where there is no security of tenure. It is intended to reflect the guidance on good practice given to social landlords in the collection of rent arrears.
(See also The Use of Possession Actions and Evictions by Social Landlords - a mjor study on the topic).
Forms
Part 55 was amended shortly after it came into force to make it clear that forms N119 (residential rent claims), N120 (mortgages) and N121 (trespassers) must be used. See PD 55, para 1.5 which now states: The claimant must use the appropriate claim form and particulars of claim form set out in Table 1 to Part 4 Practice Direction. The Defence must be in form N11, N11B, N11M or N11R, as appropriate. The forms to be used in possession claims can be found on the Court Service website housing forms page. Type in "possession" into the form title box.
Possession claims online
CPR, 55.10A and PD 55B apply to this procedure.
Possession Claims Online is as its name implies an on-line method of applying for possession. There are on-line claim forms, defences and application forms. It is also possible pay the court fees on-line.
The service can be accessed via www.possessionclaim.gov.uk.
Service of proceedings
Akram v Adam
[2004] EWCA Civ 1601
Possession claim served by first-class post to T at his regular address in accordance with CPR, r6.5(6) service where defendant has no solicitor. The claim did not come to Ts attention and L obtained judgment without Ts knowledge. When T found out about the order he applied to set it aside. The district judge found that it was well known that T had been having difficulties with his post, that at the time of service T was at his sisters address and that L knew of his absence. Held: nonetheless that the service was in accordance with the rules and was good. T could only have the order for possession set aside as a matter of discretion under CPR 13.3. As on the facts he had no real prospect of defending the claim L had offered suitable alternative accommodation - the order would not be set aside. These rules do not breach Art 6 of the ECHR. Brooke LJ at para 34:"In the present case on the findings of the district judge the judgment was regularly entered, because it was posted to the defendant at his usual residence and the district judge made no finding that the claim form was returned undelivered. The situation might have been different if she had found that the claimant deliberately suppressed the claim form when it arrived by post in his house. It follows that on the ordinary interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules, supported by the judgment of this court in Smith v Hughes (see paras 23-24 above), this judgment could only be set aside as a matter of discretion pursuant to CPR 13.3, and it would not be possible to fault the way in which Judge Yelton exercised his discretion. The suggested defence had no merit at all."
Back to top
|
|
|