ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Furthermore, if any repossession is executed without a warrant, what are the repercussions later if a tenant returns demanding their tenancy be reinstated?

This question raises a number of different issues. Section 3(1) of the 1977 Protection from Eviction Act states that where a person occupies premises by virtue of a tenancy (which is not excluded), the tenancy has come to an end but the occupier continues to reside in the premises, it is not lawful for the owner to enforce his or her right to possession against the occupier, other than by court proceedings. Accordingly, possession should be obtained via the bailiff enforcing the court order. This requirement is subject to the landlord taking a pragmatic view and deciding to take a risk not to do so.

Where the premises have been abandoned after a possession order has been made but before execution of the warrant by repossessing, landlords leave themselves open to a potential damages claim as well as criminal prosecution and conviction.

Where the occupier is still in residence, it may also result in a breach of the peace if the occupier resists. One presumes landlords would not wish to put their staff in such a position.

A warrant cannot be applied for until after the date stated in the order as the point at which the tenant must give possession, as the tenancy does not come to an end until this time.

In the case of abandoned properties, again, a possession order should be sought on the basis of the notice to quit.

Some landlords take a purely commercial decision, at their own risk, to repossess where they are satisfied by their own checks that the tenant has abandoned the property.

But if it transpires that the tenant has not abandoned the premises but simply been away, this may give rise to a breach of the 1977 Protection from Eviction Act.

In addition to proving physical abandonment, the landlord must be certain the tenant has no intention to return, which is much more difficult to prove. Often, tenants physically vacate for long periods, to travel abroad for example, which does not mean they have no intention to return.

Any landlord who takes the commercial decision to repossess should be absolutely certain that a genuine abandonment situation has arisen, or a claim can result.

If a tenant later returns, in order to mitigate the potential for damages and prosecution the landlord would be advised to allow them to re-enter, if the property is still available for them to do so. However, this should be done on the basis that they are a tolerated trespasser, and that the landlord intends to proceed to enforce the court order by warrant, or issue proceedings in reliance of the notice to quit.

If the property has been re-let, the landlord will have to take a tough decision, either to rehouse the tenant elsewhere and effectively grant a new tenancy, or face the risk of a possible damages claim and/or criminal prosecution.

catherine Hand, Partner at solicitor Jenkins & Hand