Shergroup: Ensuring “Fair Transfers” for County Court Orders of Possession

Introduction | 

For far too long, the issue of exercising discretion by county court judges under Section 42(2) of the County Courts Act 1984 has plagued landlords seeking to regain possession of their properties. The lack of certainty surrounding when a county court order for possession should be enforced has created a frustrating situation for claimants. At Shergroup, we believe it is time to address this issue and provide a transparent and efficient solution for landlords. Our forthcoming study aims to shed light on the current landscape and identify courts and judges that systematically refuse to transfer possession orders for enforcement in the High Court.

The Uncertain Landscape |  

The problem we face today can be traced back to changes in the Rules in 2001. Since then, the system has become a lottery for claimants who are seeking to regain possession from non-paying tenants or those engaged in anti-social behaviour. The exercise of judicial discretion under Section 42(2) has created an environment where access to justice is denied, leaving landlords in limbo and tenants unaccountable for their actions. It is concerning that some judges appear to be “politicking” housing decisions through the back door, contributing to the frustration and uncertainty experienced by landlords.

The Mystery of Denied Transfers |  

Disturbing reports have surfaced of a circulating letter among the judiciary, advising against granting permission to transfer possession orders to the High Court for enforcement. Moreover, this letter has been confirmed by reliable sources, including District Judges who have alluded to its existence. As a result, this raises serious questions about the motivations behind denying transfers and obstructing landlords from accessing a more effective enforcement mechanism. Consequently, such actions compromise the principles of fairness and access to justice.

Shergroup’s Study | Shedding Light on the Situation

In an effort to bring transparency to this issue, Shergroup is conducting a comprehensive study that will provide valuable data on which courts are allowing transfers and those that systematically refuse to do so. By highlighting this information, we aim to raise awareness of the disparities and encourage a fair and consistent approach across the country. Our study will identify the courts and judges that support “Fair Transfers”, enabling landlords to enforce possession orders in the High Court through a transparent set of criteria.

Advocating for “Fair Transfers” |

While stakeholders debate the issue of no-fault evictions, we emphasize the importance of prioritizing “Fair Transfers” for eligible landlords. By enabling transfers of possession orders to the High Court, landlords can benefit from a more efficient enforcement process, ensuring the swift resolution of disputes and the protection of their property rights. “Fair Transfers” empower landlords with a fair and transparent pathway to regain possession, reducing the burden of delays and uncertainty.

Summing Up |  

The exercise of discretion by county court judges under Section 42(2) of the County Courts Act 1984 has created an environment of uncertainty for landlords seeking to enforce possession orders. However, at Shergroup, we recognize the need for a transparent and fair system that facilitates “Fair Transfers” to the High Court. By conducting our study and shedding light on courts and judges that support or hinder this process, we aim to promote a consistent approach nationwide. Consequently, our Campaign for “Fair Transfers” provides landlords with the access to justice they deserve, ensuring a more efficient and effective enforcement mechanism. Join Shergroup in advocating for “Fair Transfers” and protecting the rights of landlords in the face of challenging tenancy situations.

Visit www.shergroup.com to learn more about our campaign for “Fair Transfers” and how we can support landlords in enforcing possession orders effectively.