Caroline Waterworth considers when courts should interfere in the business of possession orders
In order to preserve an income stream, social landlords must take action against tenants who fail to pay their rent. Explanations from tenants often suggest they deserve “a second chance”, but when serious levels of arrears have accrued, it is often agreed between a landlord and a tenant that it is reasonable a suspended possession order (“SPO”) to be made to:
(i) reflect the agreement reached;
(ii) embody the second chance; and
(iii) reinforce the seriousness of the situation to the tenant.
For a landlord, a SPO provides the landlord with some certainty in the event that the tenant breaches the terms of the order; the breach entitles them to obtain a warrant for the eviction of the tenant and avoids the expense and delay of returning to court.
If landlords and tenants are agreed that a SPO is appropriate in such circumstances, why are courts frequently imposing the more tenant friendly postponed possession orders (or PPOs) on the parties?
Possession Orders
Form N28 (on
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
