---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 114F: 114F: After Clause 311, insert the following new Clause— ““Prohibition of eviction without notice The Civil Procedure Rules shall provide that no order for possession, whether made in the County Court or the High Court or in any other court of civil jurisdiction, shall be capable of being enforced without the appropriate court first granting permission to issue a warrant of possession to a party who has applied, on-notice to the occupying party, for such permission.”” The noble Baroness said: This is a short point. This amendment will look a little odd; it seeks to refer in the Bill to civil procedure rules. I understand that the court has said that the rules committee at the High Court—or maybe the county court—should look at this, but that has not happened. This is to bring a little pressure. The point of the amendment is to align county court procedure with High Court procedure. The clause deals with the manner in which an order for possession is enforced. The bulk of orders where there are arrears of rent or of mortgage are suspended or postponed on terms that provide that the order is not enforceable so long as the occupier complies with certain conditions, which often would be to pay mortgage instalments or comply with other tenancy conditions. A lender or a landlord that wants to enforce an unconditional or a postponed order can obtain a bailiff's warrant for eviction in the county court simply by completing a form, so it is merely an administrative matter. That may mean that the order is enforced without notice to the occupier and without the lender, in the case of a mortgage or the landlord, ever actually having to give them notice of the breach. The practice in the High Court has been that the party seeking to enforce a possession order has to apply for permission. The amendment—as I say, it may seem odd to put it into primary legislation, but this is our opportunity to raise the issue—would align procedures across the courts. I beg to move.