Housing Issues - Past, Present and Future

The New Year provides an excuse to review some of the issues featured during the last year and look ahead to what is to come during the next 12 months.

ASB Policy and Procedures

Have you published your policy and procedures on Anti-Social Behaviour? Under the 2004 Act this should have been done by 30 December 2004. You can be assured that there will be someone out there ready to make sure that you have complied. The aim is to make social landlords accountable to the wider community. What you are actually doing will be tested against what you say that you will do to tackle ASB.

Disrepair

The Housing Disrepair Protocol came into operation in December 2003. It has changed the way tenants’ representatives have presented claims. The Protocol has forced claimants to give more particulars about their claims at an earlier stage. Abuses of the system are less frequent and the timetable imposed on the parties allows landlords to get to grips with claims and where appropriate settle them before proceedings are issued. However, perhaps the decision on costs in the case of Bowen v Bridgend County Borough Council has had a far greater effect, calling in to question the enforceability of CFAs and restricting the success fee and limiting what can be claimed by claims handlers. There are far fewer claims than there were 12 months ago.

New Legislation – Treats to Come

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 - came into force on 1 January 2005. Anyone can request information from a public authority. Any information is eligible for release subject to some exceptions. Freedom of Information applies to all public authorities, including central and local government. There is very long list of organisations covered by the Act. This is available on www.foi.gov.uk. It includes any Housing Action Trust and the Housing Corporation. Local Authority Housing Departments are required to respond to requests for information as soon as possible and not later than 20 working days after receiving the request.

The Housing Act 2004 – received the Royal Assent in November 2004. Most of its provisions will come into force during 2005. These include:

• Changes to the Right to Buy Scheme to tackle profiteering, including extending the qualification period from two to five years and extending the period when the discount can be clawed back form three to five years.
• Further powers to deal with Anti-Social Behaviour – extending introductory tenancies beyond 12 months; the power to refuse a mutual exchange and preventing a RTB purchase on grounds of ASB.
• A new Health and Safety Rating system replacing the current housing fitness standard and targeting the properties in worst condition.
• Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation to be mandatory for larger HMOs and powers to license smaller properties.
• Private Landlords to be subjected to a licensing scheme at option of the local authority in areas of low demand or where private landlords ignore ASB.
• Regulating social landlords by giving more powers to the Housing Corporation and more statutory guidance for RSLs.

New Court Fees

On 4 January 2005 Court Fees will be increased, in some cases the rise will be substantial. The reason for the increase is to make court users cover the cost of the Court Service. It is another step away from the notion that the State should fund the justice system.

Issue of Proceedings for Recovery of Land £150.00
On filing an Allocation Questionnaire £100.00
On filing a Listing Questionnaire (Fast Track) £275.00
Request for Possession Warrant £90.00

Publicity in Cases of ASB

Several RSLs have a policy of publishing information about ASBOs that they have obtained. This increases the effect and acts to deter others. Brent LBC issued details of ASBOs on posters and on its Webster and in tenant’s newsletters. The youths concerned were identified by name and photograph. The Council was challenged on grounds that such action violated Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights. In the case of R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, London Borough of Brent and Secretary of State for the Home Department the court dismissed such claims holding that the publication of material identifying a person subject to an ASBO was not a breach of Human Rights. “Whether publicity about ASBOs is intended to inform, to reassure, to assist in their enforcement, to inhibit the behaviour of the persons who are subject to them or to deter others, it is unlikely to be effective unless it includes photographs, names and at least partial addresses”. Publication can be justifies under Article 8(2).

In another case reported in The Times on 14 December 2004 the court held that permission could be given to a newspaper to obtain copies of documents from the court file. In Re Guardian Newspapers Ltd. the newspaper applied for access to witness statements held by the court. The case had been settled without a hearing and therefore the evidence had not been rehearsed in public. Although not all documents will fall into the category, statements of case and witness statements are part of the court record. It has been the practice in some courts to restrict access particularly on hearing interim applications. The use of publicity by landlords to inform its tenants and the community of successful action against ASB tenants is a useful weapon to combat the problem and deter crime.

After a Possession Order

When a tenant applies to suspend a warrant granted for rent arrears a landlord can oppose the application by relying on other grounds such as ASB. The case of Sheffield City Council v Hopkins is well known but less attention has been given to another potentially useful decision. A court can make a new possession order even though an existing suspended order has not been breached. In Manchester City Council v Finn there was an SPO on terms of payment of the rent and an amount towards the arrears. The tenant did not breach the order but there was ASB. The Court of Appeal held that the original order was still running and liberty to apply to vary it was implicit. The court can make a new order even if the old order was still running. The court should have in mind the guidance in Sheffield CC v Hopkins.

« Back to Newsletter archives