Alexander Bastin on forfeiture—pitfalls & remedies
Several issues can arise in forfeiture proceedings where a defendant fails to attend the first hearing and a possession order is made.
The usual reasons for not paying rent or service charges are either a dispute about how much is owed or an inability to pay. In such cases the tenant is usually around to make their point. If nothing is heard from the tenant, then beware.
CPR 6.9 provides that where an individual has not given an address for service they must be served at their “usual or last known residence”.
While that sounds easy, experience suggests many struggle with it. It is not merely a question of belief but, rather, actual knowledge. Is it possible to say confidently that the tenant resides (or used to) at a particular address? What is the evidence?
The leading case on “residence”, Relfo Ltd (in liquidation) v Varsani [2009] EWHC 2297, [2009] All ER (D) 30 (Oct) indicates that the critical test is the defendant’s “pattern of life”. One can have more than one “residence”. A defendant does not have to spend
