Page 99 - Solving Housing Disputes

judiciary to hear disputes in one forum promotes access to justice by reducing the
confusion where claims cross jurisdictional lines, by promoting collegiality,
knowledge and up-skilling across the bench, and by taking advantage of judges’
specialised skills without the unnecessary legislative process of conferring
concurrent jurisdiction. We see great potential in using the property and housing
experience of specialist FTT (PC) and District Judges across all housing disputes,
279
irrespective of in the jurisdiction in which the dispute falls.

4.5 In the first instance, it will be necessary to place “cross-ticketing”, on a more
280
robust footing. Whatever mechanisms are to be put in place, our Working Party
suggests cross-ticketing has the potential to ensure the greater use of housing
specialism in disputes and ameliorate the problem of concurrent jurisdiction.
Ultimately, judges with expertise should be hearing disputes, irrespective of the
jurisdiction in which the dispute nominally resides. We recommend that “cross-
ticketing” in housing be placed on a more robust and formal footing through
rule changes.

4.6 Placing cross-ticketing on a formal footing allows for the establishment of a core
cadre of specialist property and housing judges, capable of hearing disputes in
either jurisdiction. Housing law is complex and everything possible should be
done to support the establishment of a group of specialist judges, irrespective of
281
whether they are originally County Court or FTT (PC) judges. The use of

279 Judge Siobhan McGrath suggested to us that judicial specialism and expertise was a key reason for
the tribunal’s disposal rate, with around 75% of complex cases dealt with within 20 weeks of receipt and
75% of rent cases within 10 weeks of receipt.

280 Judge McGrath has previously proposed to the Civil Justice Council the addition of a “courts and
tribunals track” under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 26, Judge McGrath, ‘Report on Property Chamber
Deployment Project for Civil Justice Council meeting 26 October 2018’, p. 4 and 23 available at
th
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/property-chamber-deployment-project-report-
oct2018.pdf The precise details of this proposed change need to be worked out, including whether the
CPR and/or the Tribunal rules ought to apply, but the proposal would allow for (a) parties to seek or
oppose allocation to the track; (b) the track allowing for proceedings in both the County Court and FTT
PC to be heard concurrently, i.e. by one judge in one sitting, most likely with the claim heard in its
entirety by a tribunal judge in the tribunal; and (c) where parties elect into the “courts and tribunals track”,
cases would be sent by the county court to be administered by tribunal staff. To facilitate this
arrangement, it is proposed that regional FTT offices are to be designated as County Court offices.

281 Both have strengths: District Judges have experience in the managing of possession lists and are likely
to have had exposure to public and equality law issues in housing disputes. Conversely, the FTT (PC) is
populated with judges who are fundamentally housing and property experts.

93