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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

particular decision. Because of this, the research team considered that the third element and core of the research had to be discussions with judges to seek to understand how they went about this decision-making process and what factors influenced their decisions. These are matters which will not necessarily be apparent from pure observation and records. Thus the study contained three phases (for detail, see Appendix 1), which were carried out in three geographical locations (the West Country, London and the North of England). The areas were chosen to reflect certain characteristics such as high/low volume of possession cases in the court, rural/urban, and different types of social landlord operating in their area. 1. Focus Groups with Practitioners A series of 6 focus groups were held with practitioners. In each location a focus group was held with those who represent claimants (landlords and their lawyers) and those who represent defendants (lawyers and advice workers). The focus groups explored practitioners’ experiences of housing possession cases, with a view to drawing out what they feel influences the exercise of discretion in such cases. The focus groups also sought to detail examples of inconsistency in decision-making, and explore views of why this occurs. (See Appendix 2 for research instruments used.) We have not written the responses to these focus groups as a separate chapter, but used them throughout the report to highlight the reasons why we have explored certain issues with district judges, and the criticisms which have led to these explorations. 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. London court is a very busy county court hearing over 3000 housing possession cases a year. Sixteen 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. Nine possession sessions were observed at this court, amounting to 87 cases; around 44% of the annual cases heard here. 3
Northern 1 court hears over 1500 housing possession cases a year. Two 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. Five possession sessions were observed at this court, amounting to 89 cases; around 10% of the annual cases heard here. 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 (i.e. rent arrears) was obtained. We have focused the majority of our quantitative analysis on the 540 hearings which were the first time that case came to court, in order to compare outcomes of the same type of hearing. For each case in the session, the researcher sought to record the important facts in the case, including (where available): Weekly rent Any outcome requested by claimant Representation of defendant – in person, legally, in writing Level of arrears Any housing benefit issues Any previous hearings Family make-up of defendant Work history of defendant Outcome of case at hearing In order to confirm any facts established at the hearing, the researchers also checked the details against those in the court file. We also sought to record the nature of the judges’ interactions with both parties, although it must be acknowledged that the presence of a researcher in court may have affected the way that judges dealt with claimants and defendants. Given the qualitative focus of the research we have used this quantitative database merely to describe outcomes and difference, without seeking to provide a statistical analysis which might ascribe statistical significance to different facts about defendants. 4
Page 1 and 2: The exercise of judicial discretion
Page 3 and 4: The Research Unit, Department for C
Page 6 and 7: Contents Executive summary i Chapte
Page 8 and 9: Executive summary The research ques
Page 10 and 11: the shift to housing officers appea
Page 12: Conclusions A wide and diverse rang
Page 15: on the role of judges under the exi
Page 19 and 20: significance to a particular respon
Page 21 and 22: The application may be adjourned; t
Page 23 and 24: such forms are completed in less th
Page 25 and 26: In November 2001, the Legal Service
Page 27 and 28: Levels of arrears Although the reas
Page 29 and 30: Table 2: Rent levels from ODPM stat
Page 31 and 32: Table 5: Changes in outcomes of ini
Page 33 and 34: Table 6: Impact of participation on
Page 35 and 36: The focus group participants consid
Page 37 and 38: consideration in this chapter, the
Page 39 and 40: Neither of the judges seemed to con
Page 41 and 42: chambers, where the possession list
Page 43 and 44: Most of the district judges felt th
Page 45 and 46: The views of the claimants’ group
Page 47 and 48: Qualitative and quantitative data f
Page 49 and 50: anything to say, and wants to stay
Page 51 and 52: Table 7: Sources of training and up
Page 53 and 54: sought with what they know the judg
Page 55 and 56: Chapter 5: Judges and landlords Int
Page 57 and 58: Chart 7: Orders granted by requests
Page 59 and 60: some unevenness in the impact of re
Page 61 and 62: Thus it can be seen that the type o
Page 63 and 64: District judges differed on how muc
Page 65 and 66: There were three other, more genera
Page 67 and 68:
Conclusions In this chapter, we hav
Page 69 and 70:
Chapter 6: Judges and tenants Intro
Page 71 and 72:
approach he was more confident in t
Page 73 and 74:
“I think in terms of exercising d
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 and 126:
Lawrence J (1995) “Sentencing pro
Page 127 and 128:
give a typology of the characterist
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
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?