Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd
7.
On 13 June 2014, Rashid Ahmed served notices for possession under section 21(4)(a)
of the Housing Act 1988, and commenced proceedings for possession in September.
In their defence, the Claimants admitted service of the notices, but claimed they had
paid a deposit of £1,325 in cash without getting a receipt. In addition to claiming
breach, and arrears of rent, Mr Rashid Ahmed claimed that the Claimants had
unlawfully sublet part of the premises. The Claimants have two young children, aged
11 and 10 at the time possession proceedings were issued.
8.
Preliminary hearings took place in September to November 2014, and the possession
hearing took place on 16 March 2015. The District Judge found for Mr Ahmed,
including finding against the claim that a deposit had been paid: that was a false
claim. The Order was that the Claimants should give possession on or before 30
March 2015, plus an order for costs. The Order gave the Claimants notice that Mr
Ahmed might “ask the Court, without a further hearing, to authorise a bailiff or High
Court Enforcement Officer to evict you”.
9.
There was no order for the payment of rent arrears: such an order had not been
sought. Different figures for arrears were in evidence, ranging from £936.10 to
£8,347.71, plus court and legal fees.
10.
The Claimants approached the local authority on 24 March 2015 for help with their
impending homelessness. However, they were, in short, informed that if they left
before they were evicted, they would be treated as being voluntarily homeless. As a
consequence, the council would avoid any legal responsibility to re-house them, under
the Housing Act 1996. The Claimants accepted this, and did not vacate by 30 March.
They informed Omar Ahmed of this by phone on 30 March. Mr Ahmed informed the
First Claimant he would apply for an order for bailiffs to evict the Claimants.
11.
Mr Ahmed had two routes open to him to enforce the Order for possession. In this
instance he applied to have the case transferred to the High Court. Once the matter
was transferred, it was governed by CPR 83.13(4), meaning that a Writ of Possession
might be granted without notice. A Writ of Possession was issued on 1 April 2015.
The Claimants were given no notice of the intention to evict on the following day, 2
April 2015.
12.
The Order directed a named High Court Enforcement Officer (“HCEO”) to enter the
property and obtain possession for the landlord. The HCEO, a Ms Sandbrook, was
employed by Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd (“DCBL”). They also employed an
HCEA, Paul Bohill, and the eviction was delegated to him. He is an experienced
former police officer, who has been engaged in court enforcement for very many
years. On the day, he was assisted by an HCEA in training, Phil Short. Mr Bohill had
for some time been filmed in the course of his work as part of the “Can’t Pay? We’ll
Take It Away” television series.
13.
Malcolm Brinkworth is a very experienced television producer, the founder and
director of Brinkworth Films Limited (“BFL”). In 2013 Mr Brinkworth decided to
make a television series about debt, the courts’ enforcement systems and the work of
HCEOs/HCEAs. He felt the public were ignorant of the processes, and in particular
ignorant of the possibilities open to landlords to achieve speedy and effective
evictions, through transfer of cases to the High Court. Mr Brinkworth discussed the
idea with Simon Raikes of Channel 5, and it was agreed they should proceed. The
Seleccionar párrafo de destino3
Conectar a un párrafo
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Añadir a la tabla de contenidos