Robert Latham is overseeing the HLPA response to the consultation on reform of civil litigation costs and funding. The closing date is 14 February 2011.

Running in parallel with the legal aid reform consultation, this is a vital issue for access to justice for clients in the future won’t be able to access legal aid funding, and for continued viability for practitioners.

Robert has prepared a briefing note on the proposals, which can be downloaded here [doc]. Responses are asked for as soon as possible to enable the full consultation response to be prepared and submitted. Responses should be sent to Robert at r.latham@doughtystreet.co.uk or there is a forum topic for discussion here.

In particular, responses on the proposals for disrepair claim costs and CFA funding are welcome.

HLPA’s response to the ‘Fairer Future’ consultation document on Social Housing has been sent to the DCLG on 17 January 2011. The response can be read here [doc]

The DCLG consultation [link to PDF] entitled ‘A Fairer future for Social Housing’ is due for responses by 17 January 2010 and the proposals are to be included in the Localism Bill for February. The forum for members’ to discuss the proposals is here. David Watkinson’s summary of the proposals follows.

This consultation paper can easily be obtained from the DCLG website. It is 58 pages. The proposals are contained between pages 19-50. It is intended that they will become part of the Localism Bill and be in force by April 2012 (para 9.6)

What follows is intended as an introduction rather than a substitute for reading the paper

First, the good news is:
(1) that these proposals do not change the security of tenure or other rights of existing secure tenants of local authorities or assured tenancies of housing associations (para 2.14)

(2) it is the Government’s preference that the current reasonable preference categories for allocation in s.167 Housing Act 1996 remain (4.15) although whether they should be altered is a consultation question – as is a question whether there should be additional categories.

(3) the priority need criteria and the criteria for a duty to secure accommodation for the homeless remain (6.10).

The paper contains 3 big ideas (and some others)

1. security of tenure

“Private registered providers“ (housing associations) to have the power  to let Affordable Rent fixed term tenancies (of not less than 2 years) – the rent being higher than “social rent” but 80% of local market rents (the affordable rent part to be available by April 2011- I think- but this is not entirely clear (paras 2.9 to 2.13)

Local authorities to have the power to let to new tenants a “local authority flexible tenancy” which would be for a minimum term of 2 years, with equivalent rights to an introductory tenancy. It seems to be the plan that before the end of the fixed term there would be an assessment of options (stay, move to another social tenancy, move to private sector) in accordance with the local authority’s strategic tenancy policy (itself another proposal) taking into account tenants’ level of need, work incentives and local pressures for social housing. The tenant would have a right of internal review if the decision was not to renew the tenancy. Any possession proceedings could be defended on basis of error of law or material error of fact (and now proportionality after Pinnock?) – (paras 2.23, 2.30-32)

Unless the decision not to renew was because of the tenant’s behaviour, a tenant who became homeless as a result would be considered Not intentionally homeless (para 2.54) (and so presumably could apply for accommodation)

2. allocation

Local authorities to  have the power to end “open waiting lists“, ie subject to the reasonable preference criteria, the list could be restricted to those in housing need, examples mentioned are residency, behaviour, financial criteria etc. (para 4.9/4.10)

Those tenants seeking transfers to be taken out of the allocation framework – I think that means that the reasonable preference criteria would not apply – the aim being to make transfer easier and free up under-occupied property (paras 4.19-4.22).

3. homelessness

Local authorities to have the discretion to discharge the full duty by an offer of accommodation in the private sector – if their needs could be met that way, depending on the homeless person’s circumstances, availability of accommodation and pressure on social housing.The offer would have to met the suitability criteria. It would be for a minimum of 12 months. The homeless person would have no right to refuse (paras 6.11.-6.16)

The duty would revive if the applicant became homeless again within a period of two years through no fault of his/her own (para 6.17).

There is much else.

Discouraging empty properties and encouraging mutual exchange (Sections 3 and 4)

Proposals for addressing overcrowding are made and sought (Section 7)

The regulator (the HCA replacing the TSA) is to be directed by the SoS to require landlords to enable ‘tenant panels’ “to hold landlords to account” (para 8.9)

Current financing system is to be re-formed (Section 9)

These sections are brief proposals, each about 0.5 pages.