A stay on an eviction warrant was lifted after multiple breathing space moratoriums and a repayment offer had delayed eviction.
Summary
The High Court considered an application to stay execution of a warrant of possession on the basis that a family member would repay the debt in instalments.
The case also highlighted the use of multiple breathing space moratoriums by the defendants over a period of two years, which led to repeated delays in the eviction.
The High Court refused the application to stay execution of the warrant. The application was a further attempt to delay eviction.
Background
In August 2022 Mr and Mrs Patel took out a bridging loan with Fairbridge Capital Ltd. The loan was secured against their home and was due to be repaid in full after six months, in February 2023.
In October 2022 Mr and Mrs Patel were declared bankrupt, breaching the terms of the loan. Fairbridge demanded repayment of the loan. When Mr and Mrs Patel failed to pay, Fairbridge obtained a possession order and warrant for possession. Eviction was due to take place on 11 October 2023.
Over the next two years, the Patels entered multiple breathing space moratoriums. Mr Patel obtained a moratorium shortly before the original eviction date in October 2023, which led to cancellation of that eviction. Mrs Patel then entered a moratorium in November 2023. She subsequently obtained three further moratoriums shortly before rescheduled evictions in August 2024, May 2025 and October 2025.
Fairbridge requested a review of Mrs Patel’s second moratorium on the basis that the bridging loan was not an eligible debt. Fairbridge also challenged the third and fourth moratoriums. Each time the debt advice provider cancelled the moratorium and the court rescheduled the eviction.
The court's decision
The court dealt with the Patels’ application to suspend the eviction dated 25 February 2026 on payment terms. Mr and Mrs Patel said their son-in-law would make four payments to settle the balance in full by 1 May 2026.
The court noted that since June 2025, Mrs Patel had twice wrongly secured breathing space moratoriums while making no proposal to repay the loan.
The court considered that this proposal was a further attempt to delay the eviction.
The court lifted the stay of execution of the warrant with immediate effect. Mr & Mrs Patel were aware of the eviction and they did not need a further 14 days’ notice.
Comments
The Patels were entered into five breathing space moratoriums. On three occasions, Mrs Patel was placed into a breathing space moratorium within 12 months of her previous breathing space moratorium ending. These were only cancelled upon a creditor request, and the status of the debt was never explored by the debt advice provider. It is unclear whether a debt solution was explored with only one payment offer ever being made.
Regulation 24 of the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 requires a debt advice provider to consider any breathing space application made to them by a client. The debt advice provider must consider whether the client meets the eligibility criteria and whether a moratorium is appropriate. The debt advice provider must also consider whether the client's debts are qualifying debts.