A nightmare scenario many landlords fear is squatters breaking into their commercial premises, settling, and refusing to vacate without a court order.
Birçok işgalci genellikle ne yaptıklarını ve haklarını bilir. Ev sahipleri, işgalcilerin kapıya bir tür bildirim yapıştırdıklarını görebilirler.‘BU KONUT DIŞI BİR BİNADIR - Bölüm 144 LAPSO geçerli DEĞİLDİR’ – and they’d be right.
Ev sahiplerinin seçenekleri nelerdir?
The first port of call for most landlords is, naturally, to call the police. However, most find that the police will not get involved unless what’s known as an ‘interim possession order’ (“IPO”) has been obtained from the court. An IPO carries a penal notice that allows the police to remove the squatters if they have not vacated the özellik within 24 hours of the order having been made and served on the squatters. The Squatters could therefore be arrested and face criminal punishment such as fines, or even imprisonment, if they do not vacate.
So, a landlord can either initiate possession proceedings against trespassers in the ‘standard’ fashion, or, if they meet the criteria, seek an IPO. If they seek an IPO, they must act fast as the application must be made within 28 days of knowledge of the squatting.
Yasal test
Halka arz sadece aşağıdaki durumlarda verilebilir:
(1) the claimant is only seeking possession. A claimant cannot seek an IPO if there is a claim for another remedy (e.g. damages); and
(2) talep sahibinin derhal zilyetlik hakkına sahip olması ve yasadışı işgal süresi boyunca böyle bir hakka sahip olması; ve
(3) the defendants entered the premises as trespassers.
A common misconception is that the legal test for ti̇cari̇ mülk owners obtaining an IPO is the same as obtaining a standard possession order against trespassers – after all, a squatter is a trespasser, and to obtain an IPO, the individuals in question have to have entered the property as trespassers (as above).
Ancak durum böyle değildir. İzinsiz girenlere karşı standart bir zilyetlik emri almak için (bu emre uyulmaması halinde aynı cezai yaptırımlar uygulanmaz), ev sahibinin yalnızca zilyetlik hakkına sahip olması gerekir (acil bir hak değil). IPO almak için böyle bir durum söz konusu değildir.
Anında mülkiyet hakkı ve olası sorunlar
An immediate right to possession means one can claim a full right to possession and there are no superseding legal interests that stand in their way.
Kayıt boşlukları
Bir ev sahibinin karşılaşabileceği oldukça öngörülebilir bir sorun, bir mülkü satın alması ve yeniden kiraya vermeden önce hemen tadilat ve tamirat işlerini üstlenmesidir. İnşaat alanı gibi görünen ve tam olarak güvence altına alınmamış, tadilat işlerine tabi olan boş ticari mülkler, gecekonducular için başlıca hedeflerdir.
The issue a landlord might face is that it can take many, many months for HMLR to complete the application to register the landlords proprietorship. During this period, known as a registration gap, the landlord is the beneficial owner of the property and do not hold an immediate right to possession, until the registration is completed (and the registration gap ends) at which point they become the legal registered owner.
Bu durumda, mahkeme muhtemelen tescilin tamamlandığını görmek isteyecektir, bu nedenle Davacıların tescil için herhangi bir başvuruyu hızlandırmaları ve en azından duruşma gününde güncellenmiş HMLR ofis kopyalarını sunmaya hazır olmaları çok önemlidir. Bu yapılmazsa, hakimin tescilli mal sahibinin derhal zilyetlik hakkına sahip tek taraf olduğu görüşünü benimsemesi riskiyle karşı karşıya kalırlar ve talep başarısız olabilir.
Kiralamalar
What often precedes vacant possession is the surrender of a Lease. Similarly with registration gaps, it can take HMLR many months to complete an application to remove the Lease from the register. In this instance, the court may consider the Landlord does not have the right to immediate possession and in fact it is the Lessee with this right. Again, it is vital the Landlord expedites any application to remove the Lease from the title or risk the judge taking this view.
Sonuç
IPO’s are brilliant tools for removing squatters quickly, however Landlords need to act fast and ensure they hit the procedural requirements. The penal notice IPO’s carry mean judges can often take an even more cautious approach to that of standard possession claims, so Landlords need to make sure everything is in place, and they are satisfied of their immediate right to possession.
Further, the IPO is only (by name) an interim order, and the possession order is not made final until the return date. As part of the prescribed form of application and witness statement, Landlords will give a number of undertakings – another distinct difference from the standard possession route – of which includes undertakings not to re-let or damage the property until the possession claim has been decided. Landlords therefore need to ensure they are not breaching any of the undertakings they have given in this interim period, and it is advisable they see the process through to a final order to avoid doubt, even in the event the squatters vacate following the IPO.
For any further information, or if you are a landlord who finds themselves in a situation where squatters have settled in your property, please reach out to the team: Harry Medway at h.medway@rfblegal.co.uk, Rudi Ramdarshan r.ramdarshan@rfblegal.co.uk, Ben Frost b.frost@rfblegal.co.uk veya Victoria Huxley'den v.huxley@rfblegal.co.uk.
Harry Medway tarafından yazıldı.
Harry Medway
Yardımcı Avukat
