News, events and consultations
18 May 2011 Meeting
7 pm 18 May 2011
Possession and Housing Benefit
Speakers:
Rosaleen Kilbane: Community Law Partnership
Desmond Rutledge: Garden Court Chambers
From 7 pm at Portland Hall, University of Westminster, 4 Little Titchfield Street, London W1W 7UW
Yorkshire Housing Law Practitioners Seminar
6.30pm on 28 April 2011 at the BPP Law School in Leeds.
Adam Fullwood (Barrister) “Article 8 and Social Housing – Where are we now?”
Richard des Forges (Solicitor) “Article 8 and Social Housing – Where do we go now?”
Yorkshire Housing Law Practitioners Association
c/o Zenith Chambers
10 Park Square
Leeds LS1 2LH
Tel: 0113 2455438
Fax:0013 2423515
Legal Aid Reforms – Justice Committee Report
The Commons Select Committee on Justice has released its Third Report, dealing with the proposed legal aid reforms.
The Committee has a number of significant concerns, including over the reductions in scope, and raises alternative cost savings and the need for adequate research into cost drivers.
District Heating Charges consultation response
In response to threatened Judicial Review proceedings by Pierce Glynn, the DCLG agreed to a consultation on tenant’s liability for district (or block) heating charges levied by a local authority. Such charges are not challengeable as a service charge under s.18-25 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 by reason of s.26. Further, Housing Act 1985 s.105 provided for regulations to be made to require such service charges to be calculated and levied reasonably. No such regulations have been made. Tenants of a local authority therefore have no way to challenge the reasonableness of the charge for district heating levied, or its manner of calculation. As the charge is levied as rent, possession proceedings can be and are brought on arrears of the charge, which is not covered by housing benefit.
The DCLG were unsure about the need to address the problem as it was not considered to be a widespread issue.
HLPA’s response to the DCLG consultation can be read here [pdf], illustrating the extent of the problem and proposed solutions.
County Court consultation
As if the proposed implementation of the Jackson reforms wasn’t enough, the MoJ has issued a consultation on reforming the County Court system. Amongst the highlights, raising the small claims limit to £15,000 from £5,000, compulsory mediation for small claims and compulsory discussion of mediation for other claims.
The consultation document is here. Closing date 30 June 2011.
Civil Litigation reforms – Government response
The Government’s response to the consultation on reforms to civil litigation and costs (the Jackson reforms) has now been released.
The full response can be downloaded here [pdf] and the associated impact assessment is here [pdf]
In short, the Government intends to go ahead with its original proposals. From the perspective of HLPA members, some things are not at all clear.
While a 10% uplift in general damages is envisaged, in part to replace the success fees payable by the Defendant, this is referred to at some points as being solely damages in tort (personal injury), which would not apply to disrepair, which is contractual. However, at other times, the reference is to general damages or non-monetary losses per se. Whether the 10% uplift in damages will apply to disrepair will have to be clarified in the forthcoming legislation. However, disrepair CFA success fees will not be recoverable from the Defendant. Given the level of disrepair damages, this makes success fees difficult in such cases, even though, unlike Personal Injury, the success fees are only capped to 100% of costs. The same applies to the proposals to make contingency fee agreements lawful.
ATE insurance premiums will not be recoverable from the Defendant. There was an emerging market in disrepair ATE insurance, that protection for the claimant client will not be available under the proposals unless paid for by the client.
Further, qualified one way costs shifting, where the Claimant is largely not liable for Defendant’s costs is not initially to be introduced for non PI/Clinical negligence matters, so not for disrepair or indeed judicial review. So there will still be liability for the Defendant’s costs on a failed or lost claim.
There is a change to Part 36 rules proposed, making Defendants liable for a further 10% of the value of a claim in damages if they failed to accept a reasonable offer by the Claimant, even if the Claimant did not beat that offer at trial. There may be a further or different sanction for non-monetary claims.
In view of the Government’s intention to take many disrepair claims out of legal aid scope, these proposals make difficult reading for those looking to fund claims for clients on low incomes in other ways.
March 2011 meeting and AGM
The March 2011 meeting is on Wednesday 23 March 2011. Note the earlier than usual starting time.
6.30 pm AGM
7 pm Housing and the Human Rights Act
Speakers:
Jan Luba QC (Garden Court Chambers)
HHJ Nic Madge (Peterborough Count Court)
From 6.30 pm at Portland Hall, University of Westminster, 4 Little Titchfield Street, London W1W 7UW
View Larger Map
HLPA response on reform of civil litigation costs
HLPA’s response to the consultation on the reform of civil litigation costs (after Jackson) was sent to the MoJ on 14 February 2011. This is particularly important for HLPA memebers in view of the proposals on disrepair CFA funding and costs shifting in other areas.
A copy of the response can be downloaded here [doc]
Legal Aid Reforms Response
HLPA’s response to the consultation on Legal Aid reforms was sent to the Ministry of Justice today, 14 February 2011.
A copy of the response can be downloaded here [doc]
Legal Aid reform response draft
The first draft of HLPA’s response to the consultation on legal aid reform is now available for suggested additions and amendments in the member’s forum.
The final response has to be sent to the MoJ for 14 February 2011, so please add any views or suggestions in the forum as soon as possible, to give time to finish off what is a lengthy document.
Thanks to all who have drafted sections (in no particular order): William Ford, Ian Greenidge, Giles Peaker, Katie Brown, Erica French, Viv Gambling, Robert Latham and HLPA junior members. And thanks to James Harrison for putting it all together and taking on preparing the final draft.
Also available in the forum is the final draft of the Bar Council’s Legal Aid Sub-Committee response, in which Robert Latham has played his part.