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

“The landlord often can source one and find out if there’s someone in the community
who can assist, but…I couldn’t deal with it if the tenant didn’t understand.” (DJ S)
It was recognised that where landlords are asked to provide an interpreter for a defendant
there could be a potential conflict of interest:
“I mean in reality the local authorities in areas like that usually have people who can
speak the language…so in practice they very often are able to sort that sort of thing
out and I’m the one left in the dark because I have to accept the local authority
representative’s version of what is being said by two people in another language.”
(DJ F)
In order to avoid such conflict it was not uncommon for judges to suggest that the defendant
obtained independent advice by contacting the Duty Desk Scheme or local advice agencies
to arrange for an interpreter to attend court:
“…I’d probably ask her to see one of the advisers so that they could then try and
arrange appropriate interpreters to come again on another occasion.” (DJ R)
While the majority of judges stated that they could not deal with the case if they thought the
tenant could not understand English, this view was not universally accepted. For example,
one judge who took as a starting point that possession hearings were essentially an exercise
in debt management, expressed the view that as long as sufficient information had been
provided by the landlord about the tenant’s income and outgoings there was little reason for
adjourning proceedings:
“To my mind this is all about money, and provided I was satisfied that they
understood what was going on, and I could get the information I needed, I would not
be too troubled about difficulties in, …understanding the niceties of it.” (DJ C)
Another judge, for whom the exercise of discretion in possession cases was premised on the
overriding need to address the breach of contract and ensure that the rent arrears were
repaid within a reasonable period of time, was also sceptical as to whether proceedings
should be adjourned because of language difficulties:
“You’ve got a lot of people who don’t speak English and I’m always telling them that I
don’t regard that as an excuse. You know, they ought to get somebody in the
community [to assist]; they must know an important letter when they see one. But
they seem to think, a lot of them, when they come along and say they don’t
understand English, that you’ll say, ‘that’s all right, dear, you needn’t pay the rent!'”
(DJ O)
During observations at the four courts we noted that in London court, information on civil
procedure rules concerning housing re-possession hearings, is available on display boards
but only available in English. The court does not specifically employ interpreters, although
many of its members of staff are drawn from the ethnic groups representing the area and
they are therefore able to assist tenants who would otherwise require the services of an
67