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 ...
Appendix 1: Research Methodology The study contained three key elements, which were carried out in three geographical locations (the West Country, London and the North of England): 1. Focus Groups with Practitioners A series of 6 focus groups were held with practitioners. In each location one focus group was held with those who represent claimants (landlords and their lawyers) and one with those who represent defendants (lawyers and advice workers). The focus groups were conducted separately to capture the (anticipated) different viewpoints of each, which could then be explored further. It was also felt better to separate the groups so as to avoid any possible antagonism between them. Invitations were issued to those with considerable experience of social housing possessions practice. For landlords a list of social landlords operating in the area was compiled from directories and invitations sent to local authorities, housing associations established following large scale voluntary transfer (LSVT) from a local authority, and those housing associations with more than 500 properties in the area, as well as those associations catering for black and minority ethnic communities. Defendants’ invitations were issued to those who worked on the Duty Advice Scheme rotas, and we sought to obtain a balance between lawyers and housing advice workers. Contacts were made through local knowledge, as well as through local housing law practitioner associations, Shelter, the National Association of CABx and the Advice Services Alliance. Table 12 below gives details of the backgrounds of those attending: Table 12: Focus group details North London West Country Claimants 9 RSLs 4 RSLs 7 RSLs 2 LAs (inc one ALMO) 3 LAs 1 LSVT 2 LAs Defendants 3 Lay Advisers 3 Solicitors 4 Solicitors 2 Lay Advisors 3 Lay Advisors The purpose of the focus groups was to draw on the knowledge and opinion of the regular attendees at housing possession cases. The focus groups explored their experiences of housing possession cases, with a view to drawing out what they felt influenced the exercise of discretion in such cases. We also questioned whether inconsistency occurred and, where it did, explored why it might occur. The focus groups lasted between two and three hours, and required those attending to take part in a series of exercises: first, they were asked to 113
give a typology of the characteristics of a ‘ideal’ and ‘worst’ district judge in a housing possession case; second, they were asked to rank the influence of certain factors on the exercise of discretion; and third, they were asked to rank different district judges against a scale from ‘rule bound’ to ‘maximum discretion’. Finally, there was some discussion about the impact of court cultures on discretion. The topic guide is set out in Appendix 2. 2. Monitoring of cases In order to provide some quantitative data to contextualise what is essentially a qualitative study, observation of cases was undertaken at four sites: London court; West Country court and Northern 1 and 2 courts. The courts were chosen to provide a contrast between location (in particular between those operating in an urban setting and those in a more rural) and numbers of possession cases heard in each court. Three were initially chosen, all with some form of duty desk, providing advice on the day for tenants who attended. A fourth court (Northern 2) was added when it became apparent that for listing reasons we were going to be unable to observe a sufficiently large number of cases in Northern 1. This court provided a contrast in that it did not have permanent housing duty desk, although the CAB did provide a money advice service available to tenants. Observation took place between June and October 2004. In total 894 cases were observed, although not all of these were included in the analysis as some involved e.g. non-secure, introductory or assured shorthold tenancies, where the judge has no discretion but must grant possession. An effective database of 798 cases involving decisions on housing possession cases based on rent arrears was obtained. London court is a very busy county court hearing over 3000 housing possession cases a year. 16 possession sessions were observed at this court, amounting to 524 relevant cases; around 17% of the annual cases heard here. West Country court is a small county court serving a more rural population and hears in the region of 200 housing possession cases per year. 9 possession sessions were observed at this court, amounting to 87 cases; around 44% of the annual cases heard here. Northern 1 court hears over 1500 housing possession cases a year. 2 possession sessions were observed at this court, amounting to 98 cases; around 7% of the annual cases heard here. Northern 2 court has a smaller number of cases, around 900 a year. 5 possession sessions were observed at this court, amounting to 89 cases; around 10% of the annual cases heard here. 114
- Page 75 and 76: Family make up The broad powers of
- Page 77 and 78: are trying to deal with the particu
- Page 79 and 80: “I wouldn’t dream of making an
- Page 81 and 82: interpreter. Similarly, many of the
- Page 83 and 84: Judges are human too - personal rea
- Page 85 and 86: understand the proceedings, a great
- Page 87 and 88: What must be emphasised is that whi
- Page 89 and 90: also the most common explanation gi
- Page 91 and 92: anomalous case of West Country cour
- Page 93 and 94: District judges’ knowledge. Some
- Page 95 and 96: Two of the judges interviewed felt
- Page 97 and 98: DJ: I’d be inclining towards the
- Page 99 and 100: how he dealt with the housing benef
- Page 101 and 102: Chapter 8: Particular decisions: gr
- Page 103 and 104: Table 10: Outcomes in Ground 8 case
- Page 105 and 106: Others were, however, prepared to g
- Page 107 and 108: It is perhaps not surprising that,
- Page 109 and 110: the basis of the original possessio
- Page 111 and 112: Chart 13: Impact of family make up
- Page 113 and 114: The advice to the tenant was often
- Page 115 and 116: Chapter 9: Conclusions Where the la
- Page 117 and 118: shows that the vast majority of tho
- Page 119 and 120: important determining factors is th
- Page 121 and 122: Thus it is likely that that even th
- Page 123 and 124: 110
- Page 125: Lawrence J (1995) “Sentencing pro
- Page 129 and 130: In analysing cases percentages have
- Page 131 and 132: Appendix 2 - Research instruments 1
- Page 133 and 134: What factors would you ascribe thos
- Page 135 and 136: 20. Typically, how would you descri
- Page 137 and 138: with a duty desk representative who
- Page 139: DCA Research Series No. 6/05 The ex
give a typology <strong>of</strong> the characteristics <strong>of</strong> a ‘ideal’ and ‘worst’ district judge <strong>in</strong> a hous<strong>in</strong>g<br />
possession case; second, they were asked to rank the <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>of</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> factors on the<br />
<strong>exercise</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>discretion</strong>; and third, they were asked to rank diffe<strong>rent</strong> district judges aga<strong>in</strong>st a<br />
scale from ‘rule bound’ to ‘maximum <strong>discretion</strong>’. F<strong>in</strong>ally, there was some discussion about<br />
the impact <strong>of</strong> court cultures on <strong>discretion</strong>. <strong>The</strong> topic guide is set out <strong>in</strong> Appendix 2.<br />
2. Monitor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>cases</strong><br />
In order to provide some quantitative data to contextualise what is essentially a qualitative<br />
study, observation <strong>of</strong> <strong>cases</strong> was undertaken at four sites: London court; West Country court<br />
and Northern 1 and 2 courts. <strong>The</strong> courts were chosen to provide a contrast between<br />
location (<strong>in</strong> particular between those operat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> an urban sett<strong>in</strong>g and those <strong>in</strong> a more rural)<br />
and numbers <strong>of</strong> possession <strong>cases</strong> heard <strong>in</strong> each court. Three were <strong>in</strong>itially chosen, all with<br />
some form <strong>of</strong> duty desk, provid<strong>in</strong>g advice on the day for tenants who attended. A fourth<br />
court (Northern 2) was added when it became appa<strong>rent</strong> that for list<strong>in</strong>g reasons we were<br />
go<strong>in</strong>g to be unable to observe a sufficiently large number <strong>of</strong> <strong>cases</strong> <strong>in</strong> Northern 1. This court<br />
provided a contrast <strong>in</strong> that it did not have permanent hous<strong>in</strong>g duty desk, although the CAB<br />
did provide a money advice service available to tenants.<br />
Observation took place between June and October 2004. In total 894 <strong>cases</strong> were observed,<br />
although not all <strong>of</strong> these were <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the analysis as some <strong>in</strong>volved e.g. non-secure,<br />
<strong>in</strong>troductory or assured shorthold tenancies, where the judge has no <strong>discretion</strong> but must<br />
grant possession. An effective database <strong>of</strong> 798 <strong>cases</strong> <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g decisions on hous<strong>in</strong>g<br />
possession <strong>cases</strong> based on <strong>rent</strong> <strong>arrears</strong> was obta<strong>in</strong>ed.<br />
London court is a very busy county court hear<strong>in</strong>g over 3000 hous<strong>in</strong>g possession <strong>cases</strong> a<br />
year. 16 possession sessions were observed at this court, amount<strong>in</strong>g to 524 relevant <strong>cases</strong>;<br />
around 17% <strong>of</strong> the annual <strong>cases</strong> heard here.<br />
West Country court is a small county court serv<strong>in</strong>g a more rural population and hears <strong>in</strong> the<br />
region <strong>of</strong> 200 hous<strong>in</strong>g possession <strong>cases</strong> per year. 9 possession sessions were observed at<br />
this court, amount<strong>in</strong>g to 87 <strong>cases</strong>; around 44% <strong>of</strong> the annual <strong>cases</strong> heard here.<br />
Northern 1 court hears over 1500 hous<strong>in</strong>g possession <strong>cases</strong> a year. 2 possession sessions<br />
were observed at this court, amount<strong>in</strong>g to 98 <strong>cases</strong>; around 7% <strong>of</strong> the annual <strong>cases</strong> heard<br />
here. Northern 2 court has a smaller number <strong>of</strong> <strong>cases</strong>, around 900 a year. 5 possession<br />
sessions were observed at this court, amount<strong>in</strong>g to 89 <strong>cases</strong>; around 10% <strong>of</strong> the annual<br />
<strong>cases</strong> heard here.<br />
114
Change language