Excluded Grounds of Possession and Reliance on Mandatory Grounds in Hopkins and Finn Applications (An Update)

We previously wrote about the unreported case of Poplar HARCA v Kerr Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court in which the Court considered whether grounds of possession excluded within a tenancy agreement could be later introduced as grounds of possession.

We can now update that the matter was subject to a county court appeal to a circuit judge (HHJ Luna KC) on the issue of whether a pre-existing suspended possession order could be varied to an outright order on mandatory grounds.

HHJ Luba KC dismissed the appeal confirming that the Court did have jurisdiction to make such a variation to the order. HHJ Luba KC considered that the law does not require the issue of fresh proceedings and that the jurisdiction identified in Finn is sufficiently wide to enable the court to make an order of variation of the type made by the judge.

As with all Hopkins and Finn applications, the pre-requisites for notice must be complied with. If a tenant review is normally offered by the landlord, then that must be followed.

Again, this is a County Court appeal so this is not binding, however, it will be incredibly persuasive to the Court should the issue arise.

Credit is given to the Nearly Legal blog where the full unreported judgment can be downloaded here.

We’re here to help, so please pick up the phone or drop us an email and one of our dedicated team will help with your enquiry.

Should you have any queries, please contact Andy Moore, Partner and Head of Leasehold and Anti-Social Behaviour (Social Housing) at andymoore@msbsolicitors.co.uk.