RLA News Service

Proposal on the provision of County Court Services

We are responding to the various proposals on the provision of County Court services throughout England and Wales. I have previously been in touch with you and you have kindly agreed to accept a submission of a national basis. In particular, we are concerned about the impacts of the proposed closures of County Courts up and down the land.

This Association is one of the two national direct membership landlords associations in England and Wales. We have over 8,000 subscribers representing a membership of around 11,000. Our members are residential landlords with some agent members. Members of the Association rent out there properties in the private rented sector and our membership is representative of all sub-sectors e.g. family lets, student lets, benefit claimants etc.

Residential Landlords, along with hire purchase companies, are in the unique position of having to use the Court service as part of their day to day work. It is unlawful for residential landlords to take possession of premises without a Court order because of the provisions of Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and the Housing Acts 1988/1996 (with certain immaterial exceptions). If a landlord is in breach of this requirement he/she can be visited with severe sanctions. The net effect of this is that a residential landlord can well become the involuntary provider of accommodation.

The landlord has to allow the tenant to continue to live in the property. This is even though the tenant is in default. Substantial rent arrears may be accruing. The landlord cannot stop providing the service. At least it is open to other litigants more often than not to say “enough is enough”. The residential landlord in this situation does not have that option.

An efficient, effective and above all speedy Court service is therefore vital. If the State is to impose these restrictions on the residential landlord then the corollary is that the State must provide such a service. Our particular concern is that, as a result of the proposed measures, relating to County Courts then there will be a loss of available capacity, staff, resources and Court time to process claims for possession with the necessary expedition.

We are particularly concerned that there are already signs that the Court system is under strain. For example, practitioners in Leeds recently received a communication from Leeds County Court to say that they were 18 days behind with their work. This kind of thing has been experienced in the past. It is also of particular concern that this is happening at a time when Court fees are forever rising to try to recover more and more of the full cost of providing the Court service. It is therefore wholly wrong that fees rise but service deteriorates.

It is interesting to note that this Consultation has been initiated on a local basis. There is, therefore, a grave danger that the bigger picture will be missed particularly in relation to industry sectors such as the private rented sector, particularly because of the necessity for landlords to engage with the Court process when they require possession.

Looking at this wider picture we would put forward the following issues for further consideration by Government before these proposals are implemented:-

1. Staff resources

This proposal does not just appear to be about buildings/Court locations. Just take North and West Yorkshire for example. Here there are 50 permanent jobs clearly at risk as a result of the proposed closure of four County Courts, two of which are located in fairly large towns. We cannot conceive for one moment that there is adequate room to house the staff at the remaining Courts. There is simply insufficient room. Furthermore, each closure proposal, when it talks of staff implications, says “HMCS will engage with staff and the trade unions throughout the consultation process”. This is a clear signal of job losses and therefore a reduction in available staff resources. This is not only a long term issue but there is also the short term issue of the inevitable hiatus which will result when the reorganisation occurs due to the closure of individual Courts. This will certainly slow down the process for a time. We appreciate that more and more work is done on the internet but there is still a considerable element of staff time in processing claims, particularly where hearings are involved. Many possession claims involve litigants in person and sometimes last minute applications to the Court. These have a bearing on available staff resources.

2. Judge time

We must raise the question as to whether the opportunity will not be taken to shed some of the Judges involved. Some may choose early retirement in any case. Again, this will adversely impact on the processing of the work load.

3. Availability of Court Rooms

Again, there is the related issue of the reduction in the number of available Court rooms. It is not unknown for the larger County Courts to push out work to the smaller County Courts when there is a shortage of Court rooms but these are now to be closed. There will be a net reduction in the number of space available for hearings.

4. Travelling distance/time spent

It is acknowledged that some care has been taken when looking at this issue. The problem is that as one moves to the larger Court areas when travelling by car you do not just have to allow for travel time by car. There is time taken up to find car parking. There is also the associated cost of car parking which in City centres can be very high. For residential landlords, more significantly, there is the overall time taken up in travelling further to a Court centre for the hearing. This takes more time out of the working day. “Time is money”. This factor has not been considered at all in the consultation process. As compulsory user for the Court service residential landlords cannot avoid this.

5. Impact on tenants

We must also recognise that all of this will have an adverse on tenants who are defendants. Very often they are on limited incomes. Indeed, the very reason for the claim against them may be rent arrears. They will be put to trouble and considerable expense very often in having to travel further for Court hearings.

At the moment, Court rules require that a claim for possession be listed within 6 weeks for a hearing. Experience is showing that usually this is the norm; rather than the outside for a hearing date. On behalf of our members, the Association is fearful that more and more this six week rule will be breached. You have to appreciate that in the meantime in arrears cases the landlord is continuing to have to subsidize the tenant who is in arrears. On the other hand, the landlord still has to meet his/her commitments; particularly in relation to mortgage payments. The Bank Manager will not wait. The income is needed. What the landlord wants to do is secure possession of the property and re-let it at the earliest opportunity to bring in an income in place of that lost from the defaulting tenant.

Alternatively, possession may be taken on other grounds, e.g. breach of tenancy terms or, more often than not, nuisance/annoyance. This can only have a serious adverse consequence on the landlord as well because other tenants/neighbours are adversely impacted. In particular where there are other tenants involved often in the meantime they will leave because they will no longer put up with the other difficulties which they are experiencing. The landlord therefore suffers a loss of income and is in difficulties reletting this other accommodation while the original tenant is in occupation. It is therefore vital that such Court proceedings speedily.

What we fully anticipate is a considerable slowing down of the Court process due to less and less resources, set against escalating fees. The closure of County Courts and the allied reduction in staff will lead to ever lengthening waits for landlords who are compelled to go through the Court process. It is this involuntary aspect that is of the upmost concern to us on behalf of our members in raising these issues with you.

The overall reduction in the number of available County Courts up and down the country, combined with the loss of experienced staff, will therefore adversely impact on the day to day conduct of landlords businesses. Indeed, at the one extreme there is a significant risk of an increase in unlawful evictions. We are pleased to say that over time since the implementation of the Housing Act 1988 there seems to have been a reduction. This is our anecdotal experience. More and more landlords have become conversant with the necessity of taking action. The reality, however, is if the Court system slows down, as we fully anticipate, more and more landlords will be driven by desperation/frustration to take their own steps outside the law especially because of the financial pressures which will be experienced due to delays.

It is a fundamental to the rule of law that justice must be provided speedily and effectively. We believe that the proposals taken in the aggregate will amount to a serious attack on this principle as time goes on. Landlords are expected to comply with their legal obligations but then still have the compulsory obligation to ensure speedy access to justice. We would therefore urge the Government to think again and to ensure that the necessary resources are devoted to the County Court service.