Comments close after three months.
The Cutty Sark remembered »
« Reflections on Riverside v. White
-
-
-
The Landlord Law Newsletter, For landlords and letting agents, separate tenants version available
Join Ben and Tessa's Front Liner newsletter, for social housing workers
[Ben Reeve Lewis is remembering dancing days of Yore...] My beloved Frazzy is a teacher of Salsa and… [more]
What is a premium tenancy? How does it tie in with deposits and payment of rent? I answer five que… [more]
Landlords need to be constantly vigilant as criminals are out there and targeting properties like y… [more]
If a property is due to be demolished before the end of the fixed term, where does that leave the te… [more]
Break clauses can be difficult to interpret and this is an example of a particularly confusing one. … [more]
Here is a question to the blog clinic from Jay who is a landlord: Hi I protected the deposit within … [more]
A big item of news this week was the launch of the Deposit Guard tenancy deposit scheme. However a… [more]
Here is a question to the blog clinic from Andrew who is a tenant: I have, today, received an email … [more]
[In view of the snow, Ben Reeve Lewis has abandoned his Hawaiian shirt for a pair of slippers...… [more]
Justice, what justice?
I was very concerned to read in the Law Society Gazette today that if the proposed reforms to legal aid go ahead, it will lead to the ‘immediate dismantlement’ of specialist civil liberty legal teams in some firms. This is because cases dealt with by specialist providers tend to be more complex and time-consuming and are likely to be unprofitable under the reformed ‘fixed fee’ system. Government cannot expect solicitors to maintain a service if it is going to be run at a loss or at no profit.
Michael Schwarz, partner and Bindman & Partners said “Clients will not have access to specialist lawyers and their human rights will be at risk. It will be an encouragement for negligence or abuse by state officials, and is a recipe for injustice.”
A LSC spokesman trotted out the usual statement saying that the numbers of people helped has increased. But we all know that statistics can be very misleading. Maybe more people wanting to know what to do about their grazed knees after tripping on a paving stone in the High Street have been advised via a telephone helpline, but what about those with serious human rights problems who need more specialised help? Does giving basic legal telephone help to ten people really equate to a better service than helping one person with a serious but expensive human rights problem? It is certainly cheaper, so maybe in government-speak it is.
It is ironic that the government which introduced the Human Rights Act is now going to be responsible for taking away the ability of people to use it.
No related posts.
Back to top