Page 33 - Solving Housing Disputes
P. 33

•  social workers
                    •  DWP  officers,  through  pre-agreement  (or  legislation  for  a  pilot)
                       capable  of  being  directed  by  the lead  HDS  officer  on  a  dispute  to
                       conduct  an  expedited  initial  assessment  or  mandatory  review  of  a
                                                                             71
                       claimant’s benefit entitlement and effect any changes needed
                                               72
                    •  appropriate ADR expertise  and
                    •  FTT (PC) or District Judges.

          2.37   Phase 1 piloting should be subject to scrutiny and oversight by the HDEG
                (explored below). The HDEG should convene regularly over Phase 1, and be
                provided  with  regular  updates  on  progress  by  HDS  officers,  local  advice
                providers, the local judiciary and academics evaluating the HDS pilot.

          2.38   Subject to the HDEG and actors identified at paragraph 2.34 being satisfied
                with  the  Phase  1  outcomes  and  evaluative  measures,  Phase  2  would  add
                additional categories of disputes to the HDS and resources to the pilot, again,
                governed by dispute type and volume.

                •  Phase 2: new dispute types introduced here could include local authority
                    homelessness reviews and mortgage possession claims. It may be possible
                    to  trial  wider,  multi-disciplinary  issues  such  as  anti-social  behaviour
                    (otherwise than as a ground for possession, which will be within the ambit
                    of Phase 1) or harassment and illegal eviction. Additional skills, such as
                    debt and financial advisors, could be added to the HDS cadre at this stage.
                    Increasing the range of disputes at Phase 2 would provide for a broader
                    evidence base to assess the service for efficacy and capacity, including
                    whether certain disputes prove more amenable to the HDS model.

                •  Phase 3: subject to positive evaluative outcomes and satisfaction amongst
                    local  actors  and  the  HDEG,  more  disputes  again  could  be introduced.
                    There would be a need to expand the resourcing of the HDS at this stage
                    to meet the influx of new types of matters. The number of pilot sites might
                    be expanded.



          71  They would also provide direct advice on benefits where appropriate.

          72  This will need to be selected with care as some forms of ADR - e.g. classic “hands off” mediation -
          will not be suitable for the HDS and may even impact adversely on the development of its culture as
          described in this chapter.
          27
   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38