Page 34 - Solving Housing Disputes

2.39 At completion of the pilot, the HDEG should produce a report for parliament
on the HDS. Longer term decisions on the HDS should only take place after
parliamentary and ministerial scrutiny of the outcomes of the pilot stage.

2.40 We acknowledge that through a pilot stage, there will be a need for oversight
where the outcome of a dispute is the making of a possession order. We
recommend that during the pilot phase, HDS possession determinations
(outright or suspended) - if not appealed (see para 2.65) - should be subject to
review by a District Judge who may direct a hearing, even if there is no
73
appeal. Specific arrangements will need to be made to ensure HDS digital
case files are easily transferrable to the County Court, and for expedited
review to take place where required. We recommend that during the pilot
phase, court staff be allocated to case manage disputes from the HDS. Though
we recommend that for practical reasons, district judges review HDS
determinations at the pilot stage, long term, appeals should be heard by an
74
appellate level circuit or Upper Tribunal judge as befitting a first tier dispute
resolution service.

HDS officers

2.41 The desire to establish a multi-disciplinary, problem-solving service of quality
necessitates a range of skill sets and high-level personnel within the HDS. At
its highest, we imagine that someone at the level of Circuit Judge might be the
76
75
chief officer, and that former FTT (PC) and District Judges will feature

73 The tenant will in any event have access - and be directed - to a lawyer under the discrete arrangements
discussed at para 2.68 onwards.

74 See para 2.66.

75 Or a Circuit Judge on secondment. The chief officer position cannot, however, be viewed as one that
is judicially ruling on matters.

76 FTT (PC) judges are likely to be particularly well suited to the method of the HDS. District Judges are
becoming increasingly disposed towards conducting hearings with LIPs, but tribunals have been
designed to enable non-lawyers to participate effectively. The overriding objective requires the tribunal
to avoid unnecessary formality and seek flexibility in the proceedings (see for instance Rule 32)(b) of
the Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 while the rules require that
the tribunal “ensure[s], so far as practicable that the parties are able to participate fully in the
proceedings”, rule 3(2)(c) of the 2013 Rules and equivalent in other tribunal procedure rules. That
objective is reflected in the way in which FTT judges conduct and manage housing and property dispute
hearings to ensure that lay users can participate effectively in the proceedings.
28