The exercise of judicial discretion in rent arrears cases - Sheffield ...

The exercise of judicial discretion in rent arrears cases - Sheffield ... The exercise of judicial discretion in rent arrears cases - Sheffield ...

25.03.2013 Views

the shift to housing officers appearing on behalf of claimants; the ‘training’ process in which district judges tend to engage claimant representatives and vice versa; those representatives length of time in post; levels of confidence placed in those representatives; and the nature of the claimant as a ‘social landlord’. There is a wide variety of ways in which tenants’ circumstances and participation in the proceedings impact on judges’ use of discretion. Virtually all the judges interviewed considered attendance and payment history to be important factors they took into account when exercising their discretion, although given that decisions are being made about individuals in inevitably subjective ways there was less consistency in the way in which judges assessed tenants’ motivation. Thus the mere fact of attending the hearing did not necessarily result in a more favourable outcome for the defendant. Much greater consistency in approach and outcomes was noted in relation to the impact of the personal circumstances of tenants, such as: dependant children, problems caused by age, mental health problems or an inability to understand the proceedings. This suggests that while participation per se is not a key influence on outcomes, unless tenants attend hearings judges may not be made aware of factors which could have a significant impact on their decision-making process. So far as the level of arrears is concerned, some judges interviewed operated a ‘rule of thumb’, but said that these were always used flexibly so that other factors could be taken into account. Unsurprisingly the quantitative data suggested a relationship between the level of arrears and the outcome of possession cases, affecting the likelihood of the three main orders: outright possession, suspended possession and adjournment. As noted above housing benefit was a particular issue which emerged. Housing benefit problems are contributing to the increased number of adjournments. Claimants accept that adjournments are frequently necessary. Most district judges are well informed about housing benefit, both about the details of the system as it should work, and about the local iii

conditions under which it is administered. All of them have a certain amount of sympathy and patience with defendants, but are also aware that claimants are losing rental income while housing benefit problems are sorted out, and while possession cases are adjourned. Most district judges have become cynical about the capability of housing benefit administration to deal with claims, through their experience of hearing cases involving lost application forms and other information, incorrect assessment of benefit, and administrative delay. Ground 8 provides a mandatory possession ground for housing associations, where there are at least eight weeks rent arrears at the time of notice and hearing. Possession cases brought using Ground 8 caused district judges considerable difficulties. However, the recent case of North British Housing Association v. Mathews [2004] EWCA Civ 1736 may mean that the outcomes of the Ground 8 cases recorded in this study, and indeed the district judges’ responses in interview would now be different. The findings in relation to Ground 8 were: It is more commonly used in London. A lower number of suspended possession orders and a higher proportion of outright possession orders were made in cases involving Ground 8. Ground 8 is operating in a far from mandatory way, with district judges using a number of tactics to avoid having to make an outright possession order. The final part of the possession process, applications to suspend warrants for possession were perhaps the most difficult for judges, as they were acutely aware that their decision would have an immediate impact on the tenant’s life, and that of any family members. Although a number of factors were likely to be consistently taken into account by all judges interviewed, their responses to the scenarios varied considerably. Applications to suspend warrants were also the type of case which prompted judges to directly address the tenant in a possibly paternalistic manner, frequently referring them to sources of advice and warning them that this was their ‘last chance’ to remain in their home. Issues of consistency and fairness caused some concern particularly where district judges did not have the full case file. iv

the shift to hous<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong>ficers appear<strong>in</strong>g on behalf <strong>of</strong> claimants;<br />

the ‘tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g’ process <strong>in</strong> which district judges tend to engage claimant representatives<br />

and vice versa;<br />

those representatives length <strong>of</strong> time <strong>in</strong> post;<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> confidence placed <strong>in</strong> those representatives; and<br />

the nature <strong>of</strong> the claimant as a ‘social landlord’.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is a wide variety <strong>of</strong> ways <strong>in</strong> which tenants’ circumstances and participation <strong>in</strong> the<br />

proceed<strong>in</strong>gs impact on judges’ use <strong>of</strong> <strong>discretion</strong>. Virtually all the judges <strong>in</strong>terviewed<br />

considered attendance and payment history to be important factors they took <strong>in</strong>to account<br />

when exercis<strong>in</strong>g their <strong>discretion</strong>, although given that decisions are be<strong>in</strong>g made about<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividuals <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>evitably subjective ways there was less consistency <strong>in</strong> the way <strong>in</strong> which<br />

judges assessed tenants’ motivation. Thus the mere fact <strong>of</strong> attend<strong>in</strong>g the hear<strong>in</strong>g did not<br />

necessarily result <strong>in</strong> a more favourable outcome for the defendant.<br />

Much greater consistency <strong>in</strong> approach and outcomes was noted <strong>in</strong> relation to the impact <strong>of</strong><br />

the personal circumstances <strong>of</strong> tenants, such as:<br />

dependant children,<br />

problems caused by age,<br />

mental health problems or<br />

an <strong>in</strong>ability to understand the proceed<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />

This suggests that while participation per se is not a key <strong>in</strong>fluence on outcomes, unless<br />

tenants attend hear<strong>in</strong>gs judges may not be made aware <strong>of</strong> factors which could have a<br />

significant impact on their decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g process.<br />

So far as the level <strong>of</strong> <strong>arrears</strong> is concerned, some judges <strong>in</strong>terviewed operated a ‘rule <strong>of</strong><br />

thumb’, but said that these were always used flexibly so that other factors could be taken<br />

<strong>in</strong>to account. Unsurpris<strong>in</strong>gly the quantitative data suggested a relationship between the level<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>arrears</strong> and the outcome <strong>of</strong> possession <strong>cases</strong>, affect<strong>in</strong>g the likelihood <strong>of</strong> the three ma<strong>in</strong><br />

orders: outright possession, suspended possession and adjournment.<br />

As noted above hous<strong>in</strong>g benefit was a particular issue which emerged. Hous<strong>in</strong>g benefit<br />

problems are contribut<strong>in</strong>g to the <strong>in</strong>creased number <strong>of</strong> adjournments. Claimants accept that<br />

adjournments are frequently necessary. Most district judges are well <strong>in</strong>formed about<br />

hous<strong>in</strong>g benefit, both about the details <strong>of</strong> the system as it should work, and about the local<br />

iii

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!