Eviction..HCEO

cavework

Can someone explain why when a court order for eviction with a given date can result in the landlord applying for the above and the tenant gets no notification but can be evicted with no notice?
I was watching a TV programme last night where the tenants were under the impression that they had a few weeks to vacate but then the HC baliffs turned up..and evicted them on the spot.
If the landlord proceeds to the High court for fast repossession, are their tenants informed?
Do these courts talk to each other?
It just seemed very unfair for the tenants

Scarlett1

I watched that, in recent weeks I have wondered why tenants hadn't moved any of their belongings out if they had received an eviction date, and now I know why, the HC Sheriffs just turn up.

cavework

But my question is, can the landlord just apply to the high court for eviction without the tenant being informed?
The baliffs said on the programme that the tenants would not have been notified of the High Court decision which supersedes the other judgement with a date for eviction?
Why would a landlord go down this route?
really interested

jjlandlord

cavework wrote: »

It just seemed very unfair for the tenants

How is it unfair?

When the court issue the possession order, it gives a deadline to the tenant to vacate by.
Only once this deadline has passed can bailiffs or HCEO show up and evict.

Of course before the court can even issue a possession order the tenant has first had notice that the landlord may start court proceedings, then notice of the proceedings.

Thus, if there is one thing that the tenant has had plenty of it is notice.

theartfullodger

This may shed some light on the HCEO process, fair or not...
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?50166-Enforcement-of-a-Possession-Order-using-the-HCEO-route

cavework

jjlandlord wrote: »

How is it unfair?

When the court issue the possession order, it gives a deadline to the tenant to vacate by.
Only once this deadline has passed can bailiffs or HCEO show up and evict.

Of course before the court can even issue a possession order the tenant has first had notice that the landlord may start court proceedings, then notice of the proceedings.

Thus, if there is one thing that the tenant has had plenty of it is notice.

Thanks ,
I admit to not knowing anything about this procedure.
The family on the tv show were under the impression that they still had time left to leave from the original court order for eviction and had papers to prove this
so if a high court order is obtained baliffs can turn up unannounced and evict on the spot if the landlord is prepared to pay for this service?

jjlandlord

As said, the HCEOs or bailiffs evict only after the deadline on the possession order has passed.

County court bailiffs will let the tenant know in advance so tenants may assume that they can ignore the court order until the get a letter from the bailiffs.
They are playing the system.

HCEO may not always give notice. That is not unfair since it means the tenant is ignoring a court order by staying beyond the deadline.

cavework

Thanks ..now it makes sense

G_M

As jj says, the tenant has been notified

* by the LL that he intends ot seek possession (S21)
* by the court that a possession hearing will take place
* by the court of the result of the hearing, and the date for possession

If the tenant ignores all the above, I see nothing unfair about HC bailiffs just turning up to enforce.

If anything, the question is why should the County Court bailiffs have to give advance warning given that the tenant has blatantly ignored the court order?

dancingfairy

If it's the programme I saw the other day day though the tenant had been a victim of gatekeeping by the council. She had approached the council and had been told that she would get written warning of the eviction (and thus would then be found alternative accomodation). The tenant clearly had no choice and was forced to stay put. The bailiffs then tried to break into the property only to find the mother (understandably upset) and 2 small children (and possibly a dog?) hiding in the property.
The situation appeared to have been made a lot worse by the council giving mislead/inaccurate information and not housing the tenant sooner.
df

jjlandlord

Councils can be extremely cynical.

They will say that they have a duty to save taxpayers' money. It's true and that's fine.
However, once a court has made a possession order with a given expiry date, I think that telling the tenant to ignore it and to wait until bailiffs send advance warning is pushing too far.