Interim Possession Orders – the overlooked tool?

Interim Possession Orders (“IPOs”) are frequently overlooked by landlords in circumstances where they could be used to swiftly remove unlawful occupants from their property. Given the recent rise in “squatting” cases in commercial premises an IPO is worth considering.

The procedure governing the obtaining of IPOs is contained in CPR 55.20 to 55.28. They were introduced by sections 75 and 76 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (“the 1994 Act”).

An IPO is an interim order requiring defendant trespassers to vacate premises within 24 hours of service pending a final hearing of the claim for possession. If the trespassers fail to leave, they can be arrested for committing an offence under s.76 the 1994 Act.

They differ from conventional orders for possession in the following ways:

• An IPO may only be obtained against trespassers in circumstances where the claimant has an immediate right to possession and has had so throughout the period of the trespasser’s occupation;
• The application must be made within 28 days of the claimant learning of the unlawful occupation (see CPR 55.21) and it cannot be used in those unusual cases where damages are additionally sought from the trespasser.
• At the time of issuing the claim form, the claimant must file an application in the form shown in PD 55 and evidence in support from the claimant (or authorised office in the case of a company) personally, whereupon the court will set a date of the hearing of the application “as soon as possible” which will not be less than 3 days after issue (CPR 55.22);
• The defendant must be served personally within 24 hours of issue and file a certificate of service (CPR 55.23, ensuring CPR 55.6(a) is complied with). It would be thus prudent to have a process server fully briefed and on standby. Further, if process servers are collecting the issued papers directly from the court, it is important that they ensure that copies of Form N133 have also been provided for service. Failure to serve the defendant with the Form N133 could lead to a dismissal of the application.
• Converse to the strict rules for claimant in the IPO procedure, the defendant may file and serve witness evidence at any time before the hearing (CPR 55.24) but you will often find the trespassers present their evidence at the first hearing;
• At the hearing, the Court has a range of options including ordering the IPO having required the Claimant to undertake to pay damages to the defendant should it have been wrongly ordered and/or not to dispose of the property of the defendant in the meantime (CPR 55.25). In the event that these uncontroversial undertakings are given, the conditions for an IPO are satisfied and the claimant proves effective service of the relevant documents, the court must grant the IPO. At the same time, a date will be set for the final hearing of the claim for possession, which will be not less than seven days after the date on which the IPO is made (CPR 55.25(4)). Such a date will be set in any event, even if an IPO is not made in which case the claim will continue as if conventionally-made;
• The order itself must be served together with copies of the claim form and the written evidence in support within 48 hours of being sealed (CPR 55.26). The claimant must effect service, and a certificate of service must be filed at or before the final hearing. Once properly served, any trespasser present on the property at a time within that stated in the IPO (even if this is a re-entry) commits an offence pursuant to s.76 of the 1994 Act and thus is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both. Practical difficulties do however arise as to IPOs enforcement. Some police forces are reluctant to attend to enforce compliance, others seem (in my experience at least) to have a policy of refusing to do so. Most forces will not be willing to attend a property occupied by a large number of trespassers without the support of a riot squad. Certainly in such a scenario, the effort and additional expense of obtaining an IPO as supposed to a conventional order for possession is likely to have been wasted. It pays therefore to obtain some clarity from the relevant police force as to their likely stance beforehand to minimise this risk. On the other hand, other commentators suggest that ‘professional squatters’ are becoming more sophisticated, knowledgeable about the law, and consequently keen to vacate property over which IPOs have been obtained, so as to avoid a criminal conviction.
• A defendant may apply to set aside an IPO but only if he has left the premises and he claims that there are grounds of urgency which justify the IPO being set aside before the final hearing. Such an application must be supported by a witness statement (CPR 55.28).
• The IPO will expire on the date of the final hearing of the claim (CPR 55.27). This hearing will proceed in the same way as a conventional claim for possession. Should the claim be dismissed however, the defendant is likely to seek the payment of damages for his ousting. Any final order for possession can be enforced by warrant in the usual way, though if the defendants have been required to leave previously by the police, it is unlikely that such action will be necessary.

The IPO procedure will allow a landlord to obtain possession of their property in the shortest possible period as the hearings are listed quickly compared to conventional trespasser claims.

The process is of course not without its risks but these are only likely to be realised where there are genuine grounds upon which the defendant can properly defend the claim or when the claimant has failed to comply with the strict procedural rules.

The unavoidable additional costs of an IPO, as the procedure requires two hearings, should be balanced with the fact that if successful, it should allow a landlord to obtain use of his property in days rather than in weeks or (increasingly in my experience, at least in some busy courts) even months, should he or she have obtained a conventional possession order.

Tom Crockett is a barrister at 1 Chancery Lane. He can be contacted This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.