Interim Possession Orders (“IPO”): Useful tool or a false economy?
We’re increasingly being asked by many clients whether they should proceed with an IPO or straightforward possession order when dealing with squatters/trespassers. Their initial thoughts are often that an IPO is quicker and cheaper, but from our vast experience we’d argue it’s quite the opposite.
What exactly is an IPO?
An IPO allows a landowner to temporarily remove trespassers from their land pending a full court hearing. If, at that hearing, the court agrees the occupiers are trespassing then the order is made permanent. However, IPOs are only available if you fulfil all of the following:
- You must have an immediate right to possession of the premises;
- The affected premises must be either a building, part of a building, or land ancillary to a building – not open land;
- The occupiers cannot be former tenants/licensees of the premises; and
- You must make the claim within 28 days of the date you became aware of the occupation.
A hearing date will be set, and notice must be given to the squatters within 24 hours of receipt of the documents. At that hearing, the Judge will consider whether the conditions of the IPO have been satisfied. If the IPO is granted, it must be served within 48 hours of sealing. If the squatters don’t leave within 24 hours or they return within 12 months, they are committing a criminal offence which can attract a prison sentence.
Limitations
Frustratingly, until the final hearing the IPO can only be enforced by the police, not by civil enforcement agents. The police have discretion as to whether to take action and cannot be compelled to assist. One of the main problems we are experiencing is the reluctance of the police to get involved. If this is the case, then the landowner is left in the difficult position; they’ve incurred the cost of obtaining an IPO and, if the squatters refuse to leave and the police refuse to intervene, they cannot do anything until after they’ve incurred the additional time and expense of obtaining a final possession order.
Unfortunately this means incurring the cost of an additional hearing (which you would ordinarily avoid with a standard possession claim) as well as arranging service of the final possession order (another additional cost for proceeding with IPO). It is only at this point that an enforcement agent can be instructed to carry out the eviction (whom we always advise using, given the significant delays if seeking to use county court bailiffs).
Our experience suggests that seeking an IPO is often more expensive for clients, riskier and, unless you have the co-operation of the police, will be more time-consuming and complicated than if you’d just proceeded with the standard trespass possession route.
Our team have years of experience under their belt dealing with trespass/squatter claims. We have developed streamline processes offer our client's fixed fees. We have developed great relationships with the best enforcement agents we know so can offer a 360-degree approach, including post eviction services - what exactly should you do once you have possession...
We work for a number of law firms who refer this specific type of work to us, and work in conjunction with them to facilitate vacant possession for their clients – just the type of collaborative working which Woodstock Legal Services stands for.
If you’d like further information on IPOs or trespass possession proceedings, either as a landowner or as a solicitor looking to instruct us on that specific point, please contact Simone Ritchie, Property Litigation Solicitor, on either 0330 055 2785 or s.ritchie@woodstocklegalservices.co.uk
Contact Us
News & Insights
