Background
Our client was the owner of a commercial unit that had previously been a hairdresser/barber but was now empty and being advertised to let. A letting agent had displayed signage on the property advertising this fact.
Our client was phoned recently by someone he knew who resided in one of the flats above the commercial row of properties in which the shop was situated. They stated that they had noticed the windows of their premises had been covered over with posters and it appeared that lights were on inside. Our client confirmed that the property had not been let yet therefore the only conclusion was that someone had broken into the premises to squat.
We recommended that our client visit the premises to make sure this was the case, he did so and reported back that the premises was occupied by uninvited guests.
Next Steps – Drafting Documents
The main goal here was to obtain from the court an interim possession order (“IPO”) as soon as possible to remove the squatters from the premises and regain possession.
To be able to apply for an IPO it was important that we issued the IPO with the court within 28 days of first knowledge that the premises was being occupied. The client confirmed that he had only found out 4 days before contacting us, so we were well within that time limit.
As a result of this we drafted a copy of the N5 Claim Form, the Particulars of Claim and the IPO. The ground for possession that was cited was trespass.
In addition to the court forms that needed to be completed we drafted for our client a witness statement which supported the fact that he had only just found out about the possession of the property and the proceedings were being issued well within the 28 days. This was filed at court along with the proof of ID of our client, land registry search confirming ownership and a death certificate for the other named proprietor on the title register who had since passed away but the register hadn’t been updated. A blank copy of a court witness statement that the Defendant can complete was also served.
With all the documents listed above we had covered all bases in terms of any chance of a discrepancy the court or trespassers may have with the issued documents.
Issuing
Once everything had been put together the proceedings were sent to the court for issue. Being a claim for possession under an IPO the documents were sent in triplicate and issued by the court within 2 days. The court then emailed the sealed documents to us for service on the squatters.
Service of Documents
The Notice of Issue from the court confirms by which time the issued documents needed to be served at the premises. With time of the essence we served the documents within the 24 hour window – we put sealed documents in a clear envelope and stuck them to the door and slide a copy of them through the letter box and under the door.
Within the served documents is a copy of the Notice of Hearing of when parties need to come to court for the Judge to decide whether the IPO be granted or not.
The documents were sent to the property owner who printed them off and effected service as above, in addition they took photos of them attaching the documents to the door and posting the documents. This is important to show the documents were served in the prescribed way and also we could attach them to our Certificate of Service, which we filed at court.
Initial Hearing
The hearing was listed 3 days after the documents were served, Counsel was instructed on the behalf of the landlord. At the hearing it was noted the Defendant(s) were not in attendance and as a result the Judge was asked to grant the IPO which he did. In addition, the Claimant were awarded their costs of the action.
Post Hearing
We were sent a sealed copy of the IPO from the court, this, using the same process of service as above, was served on the premises within 48 hours of it being issued as instructed. This then gave the tenants 24hrs to vacate or risk being arrested. Again, as earlier, photo evidence of service was taken, and a Certificate of Service was filed at court. The court listed the matter for a hearing to obtain a final IPO so if the squatters did not vacate, we could instruct bailiffs to enforce.
We asked the client to go back to the premises 24 hours after service to see if they were empty or not to decide whether contacting the police was needed to evict the squatters.
The client confirmed that the premises were vacated and they took back possession.
2nd Hearing
It was important that the client was still represented at the final hearing to obtain the final IPO as if the squatters did return to the premises, they would have been breaking the law and we would either contact the police or instruct bailiffs. The same barrister was used as for the 1st hearing for the sake of continuity. The final IPO was successfully obtained.
How Kidd Rapinet’s litigation solicitors assisted
Kidd Rapinet’s litigation team were instructed to take control of the possession claim and provide clear, strategic advice.
The team’s approach focused on:
- Timing – getting the proceedings drafted and issued as soon as possible.
- Corresponding clearly to the client the steps that needed to be taken, the steps and why time was of the essence.
- Upon receipt of the proceedings provide clear instructions as to the service and what evidence was required.
- Source and instruct a competent barrister to attend the hearing and give clear and concise instructions.
- On receipt of the order, again, serve the same on the premises again while providing our client clear instructions on how to do this.
- Instructing the same barrister to attend the final hearing.
- Advising outcome of hearing to client and send the relevant final order to them.
Conclusion
This claim was entirely dependent on timing and it was important that the client fully understood Kidd Rapinet’s litigation team were against the clock from the start and how important the service of the correct documents, in the correct, manner was.
The result meant the client regained possession of his retail premises in less than 2 weeks from when he was first made aware of its illegal occupation.