1. Dear Cindy, this is unlawful conduct on the part of the bridging company and you should call them to order. Essentially, you should go back in before the judge who postponed the eviction date until 19.09 and explain what happened. Get the judge to call the people from the bridging company to explain the reason for their behaviour. Your grounds for making the application before the judge should be that you want the eviction order discharged because of the unlawful behaviour of the bridging company. Essentially, a party who seeks an equitable order before a court, such as an eviction order, should come with clean hands before the court. here the bridging company have flouted the law and the eviction order deserves to be discharged. Explain also that you have a contract for sale depending on the situation.
2. Please Rate the answer as unless you Rate the answer your Expert will receive no payment for answering your question.
3. You should re-enter the matter in court and get the issue of interest adjudicated. Penal rates of interest can be measured downwards by the court. Secondly, I am not sure you can rely upon the word of the solicitors for the bridging company in telling you they can do this. You should really get your own solicitor to read the papers and see what they are allowed to do. Certainly, in my experience, they would not be allowed to do this. Eviction only comes into force on the day of eviction. Not before. So, I would question whether they can in fact do this???
4. Dear Cindy, I live outside the UK, so I won't be able to handle your case for you. However, you should get yourself a solicitor to help you, as this will safeguard your interests.
1. Dear Cindy, as a Member, you simply Accept the Proposed Offer and your Membership covers it. However, the need to Accept answers and to Rate Questions is necessary as this is the method whereby the website pays the Experts who work on it. So, this is separate to your paying your membership.
2. Dear Cindy, you would re-enter the matter of interest by way of Notice of Motion or Originating Summons in the same matter in which the order was obtained. There is no need to issue fresh proceedings. Simply use the existing proceedings in being.
3. Dear Cindy, I regret to say that as the bridging company got possession with the aid and consent of your tenant, their entry upon the premises would not have been unlawful. Your tenant effectively let your side down. You can argue the issue but your are unlikely to be successful where your tenant voluntarily surrendered possession to the bridging company.
4. The type of solicitor or barrister you need here is one experienced in real property law. Someone who has experienced in dealing with eviction and possession actions. You can find out from the Law Society who is such an experienced lawyer if you cannot find one in your locality.
5. Yes, it does make a difference that the bridging company broke into the premises. This is unlawful entry. From what you suggested, I believed that the tenant had assisted them in entering the premises. If there was forcible entry, then this was unlawful until the date given in the order.
6. There is no need to bring the premises back to its original state before a sale proceeds. There can simply be an abatement of the price to reflect the different state of the property. However, you cannot complete the sale if you don't have vacant possession. So, the sale will fall away.
7. However, you should go to court and seek to implement the sale. You are always going to get a better price selling the property yourself than the bridging company will get from a forced sale. Seek to retain vacant possession until the eviction date and sell the property in the meantime, completing the sale.
8. I regret to say that as a matter of practicality, you won't get the bridging company to bring the property back to its original state. You will have to be happy with just getting the property with vacant possession in the state it is in and then making the best of the situation.
9. Secondly, yes, you can get sued if you won't deliver vacant possession to the purchaser. That is why I am suggesting you go back into court and re-establish vacant possession. If you won't have vacant possession, then you cannot complete, so the sale will get repudiated and you will get sued. That is what I mean by the sale falls away.
10. Exercising a common law right of re-entry is not something a lender does. This would normally be carried out if the premises were rented, not when a security holder re-enters on a property. So, this is just a weak justification for what they did.
11. Dear Cindy, I am sad to hear that the judge agreed with the bridging company and that they were allowed to keep possession. However, please file your new request as a Fresh Question and mark it for my attention. This thread should be finished here.