Page 118 - Solving Housing Disputes

5.6 We appreciate the HDS is a bold recommendation. To our knowledge, nothing
quite like it exists in civil justice here or abroad. For those reasons, we recommend
it be introduced as a phased pilot and subject to robust evaluative outcomes. Co-
design of the pilot between various stakeholders in the sector will be essential.

5.7 Should a pilot be successful, the majority of our Working Party envisage that
long-term, a properly funded HDS paid for by housing providers could become
the dispute resolution model for all housing disputes.

5.8 Long term, our recommendation is for a quality, first-tier dispute
resolution/problem solving model capable of addressing the underlying issues
giving rise to all kinds of housing disputes and resolving them in a way that allows
parties to live together beyond the dispute. The quality, holistic service we
envisage will be costly, but there is an obvious source of revenue to provide for a
national model. The Strengthening Consumer Redress paper suggests that all
housing providers should pay into a redress scheme. We recommend that,
ultimately, such funding should go to the HDS.

5.9 Our hope is that the HDS becomes part of a more joined up, integrated housing
disputes architecture. While we acknowledge that the long-term vision for the
HDS is that it become the starting point for housing dispute resolution, nothing
about it should be seen to derogate from recommendations elsewhere in the report.
This is because we fully promote the right to appeal from the HDS, which we
envisage would involve a seamless transition from the HCRS appeal process. We
imagine that the introduction of the HDS into the civil justice landscape would
cause other pre-existing jurisdictions and processes to evolve in response.

5.10 We must acknowledge that tenant and legal aid lawyers we consulted with were
in opposition to the proposal for the HDS. Those views are captured in the
dissenting chapter below. For those consultees, the problems in the current
system are generally attributable to court closures and reductions in legal aid
caused by austerity. These consultees were therefore generally supportive of any
recommendations to address those issues within the current system.

5.11 Chapters 3 and 4 of the report therefore focus on what reforms are needed now,
and irrespective of whether the HDS comes to fruition. Much could be done to
reform current processes quickly, provided there were the necessary political
will. The Ministry of Justice’s Legal Support Action Plan is an opportunity to
112