As a litigation solicitor specialising in residential landlord and tenant law, I have during the past 20 years pursued claims for possession based on nuisance.
I also sit on the boards of two housing associations so I appreciate their perspective.
And I have gained further insight having dealt with many hundreds of possession cases in my role as a deputy district judge.
I write this letter, however, in a completely personal capacity.
The question raised by Ali as to whether the regulation "big stick" would be used on the legal system to expedite eviction cases and ensure housing associations meet their targets on antisocial activity can only be answered negatively.
Putting aside whether or not that is what is needed, the judiciary – rightly in my view – will assert its independence.
An independent judiciary is a fundamental part of a free society. A regulatory "big stick" would conflict with that autonomy.
Moreover, an attempt to restrict or reduce the powers of the courts on the basis of a limited number of cases where it is felt by some that matters have not progressed as they would like tends to make "bad law", as many immigration practitioners will attest.
Ultimately, each case is decided on its individual facts and on an interpretation of the law by the judge on the day. Each side has the chance to appeal with the standard rules applicable for cases.
While not a perfect system, this is one that performs pretty well in the majority of cases in managing to balance the conflicting rights of all parties. If there is a problem, the way forward is not to be heavy-handed but to educate.
The two players identified by Ali as influencing the outcome of antisocial behaviour measures are the ODPM and the judiciary.
The ODPM needs to think more carefully about the fact that the legal realm is not an area within the control of a registered social landlord.
Independent outside bodies (such as a court) can adversely affect the position of an RSL through no fault of the housing provider – and it is up to the ODPM to ensure that any guidance issued takes proper account of that.
The judiciary undergo regular training and discuss areas of practice and law and it may well be worthwhile, assuming it is felt there is a problem, for there to be some approach to the Association of District Judges and/or the court service to see whether or not a presentation can be made or articles written for their in-house magazines.
I believe this is much more likely to resolve this potentially problematic area than wielding any hitting implements.
Source
Housing Today
Postscript
M Wall, Chesterfield
No comments yet