Page 8 - Solving Housing Disputes

However, the proposal for a fully formed HDS is bold, ambitious and will require
significant time and investment. It will have to be tested and rigorously evaluated
through a pilot phase. If the pilot shows positive results, in the longer term the HDS
will need to be integrated with and replace elements of the current system.

The HDS is not an idea accepted by all our members and was rejected by all the tenant
lawyers we consulted. Their concerns are set out in the dissent to the model at page
126. We understand and value those concerns, which have done much to shape the
detail of the model we propose. Nevertheless, the majority of the Working Party
consider that the HDS could offer a better outcome for all parties to housing disputes
and is worth exploring – carefully, in limited scope, against relevant criteria and with
advisory input from all relevant professional groups.

The second part to this report sets out recommendations which we consider necessary
to improve access to and navigation through the current system. Building upon the
Government’s proposed Housing Complaints Resolution Service, these promote
improvements in:
• access to early legal help, making use of the Government’s Legal Action
Plan;
• more accessible court and tribunal architecture through a single point of
entry for all types of housing dispute;
• assisted online services and, where face-to-face alternatives are needed for
people who cannot engage online, flexible deployment of physical hearing
venues so that people can reach the courts and tribunals that will decide upon
whether they can keep their home.

Once proceedings commence, our proposals are for:
• alternative dispute resolution to be embedded pre-action;
• case management to engage case workers who can assist in the triaging of
disputes to the correct resolution method; and
• cross-ticketed, specialist housing judges who can sit for both court and
tribunal jurisdictions.

2