Page 121 - Solving Housing Disputes

landing page should include prominent signposting to sources of independent
advice, information and legal advice [2.45].

8. HDS decisions would be appealable to Circuit Judges or Upper Tribunal.
Appeals would be available on fact or law as of right. An appeal would
normally generate an automatic stay on the HDS determination save for those
parts not relevant to the appeal [2.65-2.67].

9. The pilot should include independent lawyers in each pilot location, to
provide parties with legal advice on their rights, interests and obligations,
remunerated under a discrete arrangement (based on a legal aid contract or
otherwise) at a sustainable rate, capable of taking the dispute to court and
tribunal if the dispute cannot be resolved through the HDS [2.68].

10. We recommend specific arrangements be made for independent legal advice
for parties through the HDS process, with contracts for either panelled
lawyers or a new legal aid contract co-designed with the advice sector and
Government through the HDEG [2.71].

11. The HDS should be a phased pilot, robustly evaluated, and subject to
oversight by a Housing Dispute Service Engagement Group (HDEG), chaired
by a judge of expertise and standing and populated by academics, relevant
Government agencies (MHCLG, HMCT, MOJ), lawyers from tenant,
landlord and social housing groups and other affected interest groups [2.73-
2.74].

12. The HDS would take a staged approach to dispute resolution. The following
stages would, however, need to be flexible, and allowances would have to be
made for urgent issues, e.g. through a “fast-track” portal which should engage
a dedicated duty team [2.49-2.58]:

Stage 1: holistic, investigative, problem solving stage;
Stage 2: interim assessment;
Stage 3: facilitated negotiation/ADR stage; and
Stage 4: adjudication.

13. The HDS should be subject to a phased pilot [2.34-2.40], against a range of
robust evaluative outcomes [2.75], co-designed through the HDEG in
advance of the pilot.
115