Page 67 - Solving Housing Disputes

(ADJ) to the recent House of Commons Justice Select Committee Court and
167
Tribunal Reforms inquiry (Justice Select Committee Inquiry) noted that the
closure of Rotherham County Court had caused a notable reduction in
attendances at that possession list, which had moved to the afternoon at Sheffield
County Court.
168

3.23 At possession hearings people face the prospect of the loss of their home. As
such, everything possible should be done to remove structural obstacles to their
attendance. One way to do so is for the estate to be flexible and to conduct
hearings in civic buildings in communities impacted by closures. 169 In May 2019,
HMCTS published its new court and tribunal design guide, which, under the
heading of “supplemental provision”, briefly considers the use of third-party

167 Available at http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/ju
stice-committee/hmcts-court-and-tribunal-reforms/written/98252.html

168 Court staff kept a record of court attendance for each list: 41.3% of Sheffield tenants attending the
possession list, compared to 30.3% of Rotherham tenants in the afternoon list. The Association noted
that Sheffield and Rotherham are only a 15-minute train ride away (7 miles), on the lower end of the
distances travelled by virtue of court closures. 2018 research from Suffolk – where the closures left just
one court house in Ipswich to serve a county of 750,000 people – demonstrated increased disengagement
from the justice system as a result of court closures, with the impacts felt most acutely by those on low
income, those who rely on public transport and those who have a disability. One advocate noted his
clients who could not afford the journey to Ipswich had opted for waiting until they are arrested on a
warrant so that the police can drive them to court. In the report, one member of judiciary noted that in a
five-day Crown Court trial, “a week of travelling would mean that one would have to spend the entire
DLA [Disability Living Allowance] on travel,” Olumide Adisa, Access to Justice: Assessing the impact
of the Magistrates’ Court Closures in Suffolk, (July 2018), p. 4 and 18, available online at
https://www.uos.ac.uk/news/access-justice

169 The 2016 JUSTICE Working Party report, What is a Court?, recommended the development of courts
that could service communities affected by court closure on either a peripatetic basis, where judges travel
throughout the country for hearings, servicing areas that do not have a ‘traditional’ judicial presence or
on a “pop” up basis dictated by demand. Spaces such as local council offices, libraries, community
centres and schools were highlighted as suitable for pop-up venues in disputes with little need for formal
security arrangements. We understand that approaches in this vein have been adopted in various places.
We were told that when Bow County Court closed, a “Housing Hub” was established at Stratford
Magistrates’ Court, where a single hearing room was set aside for mainly possession cases, with matters
heard by District Judges with a particular interest in housing. The purpose was to reduce the burden on
those who did not have the resources to travel, to allow them to appear at their hearings. We also
understand that the FTT (PC) is flexible in the conduct of its hearings, conducting on-site inspections for
a number of cases and where the court and tribunal estate does not offer a building proximate to a
property, holding hearings in hotel rooms.

61