QB-2019-002737 - [2025] EWHC 2603 (KB)

(D)​ The Factual Background

For the purposes of this application the Claimant filed a number of witness statements:

A witness statement from Ms Mandeep Mehat. Ms Mehat is a solicitor employed by OneSource Legal Services and is the Head of Law Enforcement and Litigation.

Witness statements from Ms Jane Eastaff, the Claimant’s Enforcement Manager.

A witness statement from Ms Jill Warren, Deputy Team Leader in the Development Planning section in the Planning Department at the London Borough of Havering.

A witness statement from Acting Chief Inspector Charlie Routley. He is the Acting Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Police in the Havering Safer Neighbourhoods Team, East Area BCU. His Team responds to reports of unauthorised encampments in that policing area.

In her statement, Ms Mehat explains the background to the proceedings and confirms that the Injunction has been effective. She says that unauthorised encampment numbers have fallen from 177 in the period 2014 to 11 September 2019, to three in the period 11 September 2019 to 24 May 2021 (when a power of arrest was in force against Persons Unknown), seven in the period 24 May 2021 to 3 October 2024 (when a power of arrest was not in force against Persons Unknown) and three since the grant of the Injunction on 3 October 2024. The most recent of the unauthorised encampments was on the weekend of 6 September 2025.

Ms Eastaff has reviewed Council’s records of unauthorised encampments that have formed in the Borough since 3 October 2024. There have been three such encampments.

The first was on 20 May 2025. It was at an open area at the top of Wood Lane, Rainham RM13 9QH, known as Berwick Woods. It is a Sensitive Site (Site 118) in the current Injunction.

The second was at Justums Park on 6 July 2025. Jutsums Park is a small recreational space (postcode RM7 0ER) located to the west of Romford and is one of the sites covered by the Injunction (Site 172). There is also a children’s playground on the Site.

The final unauthorised encampment was at Hornchurch Country Park on 6 September 2025. Hornchurch Country Park is covered by the Council’s current injunction order and is Site number 242. Hornchurch Country Park is located at the southern end of Hornchurch and is one of the larger parks in the Borough, covering approximately 257 acres.

Alongside the reduced frequency of unauthorised encampments, the duration of the encampments that have formed has also reduced, with most moving on within a 24-hour period. Ms Mehat explains that there is flexibility to negotiate a longer stay if appropriate. Ms Mehat states that the

“Council takes a constructive approach to work with the Travellers to understand their needs, and educate them on the Injunction and its effect. If there is a compelling welfare need that requires the encampment to be tolerated for a short time on the site on which it has formed, or on another more suitable site, the Council will tolerate as required. Enforcement by contempt proceedings (or, historically, the power of arrest) is always a last resort, and has never needed to be relied upon. Generally, the Travelling community adhere to the Injunction when made aware of it, and move on promptly as required; that is in stark contrast to the position prior to the grant of injunctive relief.”

Ms Mehat states that the costs incurred by the Claimant in the clearance of fly-tipped waste have been reduced to nil (or such a negligible amount that they did not warrant recording). She says that that is a significant reduction from the sum of £162,467.30 in the period 2016 to March 2019.

The Claimant operates a negotiated stopping policy (a “Negotiated Tolerance Procedure and Temporary Transit Agreement”). Whilst the Policy is documented, Ms Mehat “acknowledge[s] that it is not a formally adopted Council Policy. The Council intends to update the Policy (and would need to do so to update the injunction order at Schedule 1, following this Application). In doing so, the Council is willing (if required) to elevate the Policy to a formal Council policy, which will be prepared and placed before its Cabinet for approval as soon as possible. If required, the Council is willing to provide an undertaking to this effect.”

The Claimant argues that the significantly reduced number of unauthorised encampments in the Borough (and on the Sensitive Sites specifically) is not evidence that the threat has dissipated, but rather that the Injunction is having its intended effect.

Ms Mehat says that there are two main reasons why injunctive relief continues to be needed:

the Council apprehends that if the Injunction expires, unauthorised encampments will again form in the Borough with greater frequency, size and duration, in line with the experience of the Borough prior to the grant of injunctive relief, and significant harm will be suffered by the inhabitants of the Borough as a result; and

the alternative methods and powers available to the Council to control and manage unauthorised encampments are not as effective or efficient enough to prevent the apprehended harms (or reduce them to a manageable level).”

In her statement Ms Mehat addresses the reasons why the Claimant is seeking an injunction against Persons Unknown:

“The nomadic way of life of the Gypsy and Traveller community means that there is a revolving cast of people passing through the Borough and who are forming encampments (as demonstrated by the three encampments in 2025 all having been formed by different people, none of whom were recognised). In those circumstances, it is impossible for the Council to know who will in fact visit the Borough and form an unauthorised encampment.

When unauthorised encampments form, the Council is not always able to identify those who are present at an encampment. It is common for members of encampments to decline to give a name when asked by Council officers, or they give only a first name, surname or nickname. In this Claim, the vast majority (if not all) of the 105 Named Defendants were identified with the assistance of the Metropolitan Police, who checked the registration numbers of the vehicles present at the various encampments against the police database. Even then, sometimes no trace of the person or vehicle could be found, or various other issues arose, such as cloned number plates and incomplete or incorrect data, again thwarting attempts at identification. Indeed, some Named Defendants were discontinued against because the identification data obtained in this way was shown to be unreliable.”

In his statement Acting Chief Inspector Routley explains that the three unauthorised encampments that have formed in the Borough since the grant of the Injunction (which were on Sensitive Sites) were tolerated for a brief period, which allowed for the orderly vacation of the encampment. He says that his “review of the Police records also suggests that the encampments formed on 20 May 2025 and 5 July 2025 were formed by different persons, and no person who identified themselves to the Police Officers was already known to the Police; they appeared to be first-time visitors to the Borough, and have not been identified in the Borough since.”