ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

The potential pros and cons of a Housing Court

As the government consults on the idea of a new Housing Court to make it easier to resolve housing disputes, Daniel Skinner looks at what the benefits and challenges could be

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Picture: Getty
Picture: Getty
Sharelines

As the government launches a consultation, Daniel Skinner of @CapsticksLLP looks at the potential benefits and challenges of a Housing Court #ukhousing

“If the new Housing Court did not contain a provision for legal aid… many vulnerable tenants would be left unrepresented” writes Daniel Skinner of @CapsticksLLP #ukhousing

“One advantage of a Housing Court could be the use of specialist judges” Daniel Skinner of @CapsticksLLP looks at what the government’s proposed Housing Court could look like #ukhousing

There has been talk of a specialist Housing Court for many months, if not years. Now, the government has released its consultation document, Considering the Case for a Housing Court – A Call For Evidence.

It follows on from other changes, such as banning orders and consultation on leasehold reform and the Social Housing Green Paper.

The consultation is in four parts and the last section will attract the most attention. It relates to the case for structural changes to the courts and tribunal, and considers a possible new Housing Court.

The consultation sets outs out four options:

  1. Establish a new, specialist Housing Court
  2. Make structural changes to the existing system
  3. Make changes to the county court enforcement process
  4. Make no changes but improve the available guidance

One of the biggest differences between the two current dispute routes – the county court and tribunal – is the issue of costs.

Costs can be awarded in the county court but are generally not recoverable in tribunal. Tribunals were designed to be used by litigants in person and free of lawyers. However, under the terms of leases, freeholders may be able to recover costs through service charges so are often happy to instruct lawyers.


READ MORE

Eight-week delay for complaints adds stress and frustration and should be removedEight-week delay for complaints adds stress and frustration and should be removed
Government to consult on 'housing court' proposalGovernment to consult on 'housing court' proposal
Government to consult on housing court to hear tenant grievancesGovernment to consult on housing court to hear tenant grievances

Legal aid is not available at tribunal. If the new Housing Court does not contain a provision for legal aid to be available, many vulnerable tenants will be left unrepresented. But if legal aid is made available, the issue of recovering costs will potentially be controversial.

If, say, a tenant won a disrepair claim and costs were not recoverable, either the damages awarded would be eaten into or the taxpayer would be paying for the tenant’s lawyer.

Mind you, a greater focus on proportionality of costs would be welcome.

“If the new Housing Court does not contain a provision for legal aid to be available, many vulnerable tenants will be left unrepresented”

Similarly, if costs are not awarded, a successful landlord will be left out of pocket. It could be argued that, in essence, this is already the case, as awards of costs are rare or unenforceable.

If a social landlord cannot recover its costs then it is its other tenants who end up paying.

One advantage of a Housing Court could be the use of specialist judges with expert knowledge of the law relating to housing.

This may speed up disputes and help with decision-making. Currently, county court judges have a difficult job and cover a very wide area of law, often having practised in different fields such as matrimonial law before being appointed.

“One advantage of a Housing Court could be the use of specialist judges”

Making structural changes may be worth looking at, but the county court is clearly struggling at the moment. Adding extra cases would seem unwise. However, moving large numbers of cases in the other direction could flood the First-Tier Tribunal.

Changes to enforcement in the county court would seem sensible, but if that involved greater use of private agencies, there may be concerns about rogue elements becoming involved.

Making no changes but improving guidance is the last option. While improved guidance can never be criticised it would seem unlikely that this option will result in any major practical improvements.

Readers are encouraged to respond to the consultation, which can be accessed here.

Daniel Skinner, partner, Capsticks Solicitors

 

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.