Page 138 - Solving Housing Disputes

inquisitorial process. The lack of importance placed on the relationship
between a vulnerable client and their adviser is deeply troubling.

19. Furthermore, it is not just a small minority of people who will struggle.
Almost all our clients are vulnerable in some way, even if that is just because
they are at risk of losing their home. This is why the repeated comparisons
with the Traffic Penalty Tribunal are, in our view, inapposite. Of course,
some users of that Tribunal will be vulnerable, and will have the
characteristics described above. But with housing cases such as possession,
homelessness, and disrepair, the client group is almost by definition at a
disadvantage.

20. These concerns are exacerbated by the fact that there is a clear emphasis on
digital means of communication. We recognise the acknowledgement that
other channels must exist for those who are vulnerable, but this fails to take
into account the ubiquity of vulnerability in this client group. Furthermore, it
is not simply a question of being able to access online services, although this
is a problem for many of our clients. It is the fact that online services put the
burden on the client to understand and provide the relevant information. The
opportunity for engagement, clarification, and assistance presented by a face
to face interview cannot be replicated.

21. Moreover, it would be fanciful to suggest that the landlord or local authority
which is able to do so will not avail themselves of legal assistance. The
experience of HLPA members is that, even in no-costs jurisdictions, where
legal aid is unavailable the majority of landlords are represented and the
majority of tenants are unrepresented. We believe this would be the case in
the HDS and that the result would be a serious imbalance.

22. Role of lawyers: these concerns are not assuaged by the fact that some
provision is made for a limited amount of legal assistance. It is clear that, on
the whole, the HDS is itself to be a lawyer-free zone. Lawyers will be present,
but on the margins, advising clients throughout the process. It appears that
these lawyers will be drawn from “a panel of independent, contracted
lawyers” (para 2.70) and the paper proposes that they be offered “sustainable
rates” which are sufficient to offset the loss of inter partes costs orders (para
2.72). HLPA’s concerns with this proposal are as follows:

132