RLA County Court closure campaign
A campaign has been launched by the Residential Landlords Association, regarding the threatened closure of a large number of courts.
The Ministry of Justice claims that many of the courts are underused, have out of date resources, (including inadequate facilities for disabled people) and that it would be more efficient to concentrate work into fewer but larger and better equipped buildings.
The RLA say that the closures would be unfair on landlords, who are one of the few businesses who use the courts regularly – as it is not possible to evict a tenant (legally that is) other than by obtaining a court order.
“We are concerned about the proposed closures because residential landlords are among the few businesspeople who regularly have to use the court service as part of their day to day work,” says Richard Jones, the RLA’s secretary – and a lawyer himself.
One of the main problems is that the 1977 Protection from Eviction Act and the 1988/1996 Housing Acts make it unlawful for residential landlords to take possession of premises without a court order.
“Courts are already under great pressure and waiting lists are growing – and this would only get worse,” says Richard Jones. “But, meanwhile, landlords have to allow tenants to continue living in their properties even if they are not paying their rent.”
I have a lot of sympathy with landlords on this but if closing the courts will save money then I expect it will happen whatever they think about it.
There is also probably a lot of truth in the MOJ view and no doubt it would cost a fortune to put all court buildings into proper repair and bring their equipment and facilities up to date. In the current economic climate this is just not going to happen.
However surely there could be some alternative solutions, maybe using video technology and/or the internet. After all a court is not necessarily a building, it is a place where justice is delivered. This could as well be in a suitable room in a local building (parish hall, hotel or even pub), or a traveling court bus, as in a dilapidated court building which is expensive to maintain and heat in winter.
What do you think? In the meantime here is a list (taken from the RLA web-site) of the courts at risk:
County Courts at risk:
London Region:
- Ilford County Court
- Mayor’s And City Court
South West Region:
- Cheltenham County Court
- Penzance County Court,
- Trowbridge County Court
- Poole County Court
South East Region:
- Ashford County Court
- Gravesend County Court
- Haywards Heath County Court
- Epsom County Court
- Huntingdon County Court
- Harlow County Court
- Lowestoft County Court
- Newbury County Court
- Hitchin County Court
Midlands Region:
- Rugby County Court
- Stourbridge County Court
- Stratford-Upon-Avon County Court
- Newark County Court
- Worksop County Court
- Melton Mowbray County Court
- Wellingborough County Court
- Grantham County Court
- Skegness County Court
- Tamworth County Court
- Oswestry County Court
- Ludlow County Court
- Shrewsbury County Court
- Evesham County Court
- Redditch County Court
- Burton-Upon-Trent County Court
- Kidderminster County Court
North West Region:
- Northwich County Court
- Southport County Court
- Penrith County Court
- Runcorn County Court
- Whitehaven County Court
- Rawtenstall County Court
- Chorley County Court
- Salford County Court
- Bury County Court
North East Region:
- Bishop Auckland County Court
- Consett County Court
- Barnsley County Court
- Goole County Court
- Skipton County Court
- Pontefract County Court
- Keighley County Court
- Dewsbury County Court
Wales Region:
- Chepstow County Court
- Aberdare County Court
- Llangefni County Court
- Rhyl County Court
- Pontypool County Court
I am interested to see the RLA point. Two issues occur to me.
The first is that most of these court buildings are likely to be leased and a well drafted commercial lease will require the Ministry of Justice to put all their court buildings into proper repair at the end of the lease anyway. Thus they are still going to have this expense.
The second point is that I regularly have cases in Hitchin County Court (one of those at risk). Taking a possession claim through Hitchin County Court takes a month longer at the moment than it does through one of the other courts in the group which I expect is largely as a result of under funding and lack of staff resources. If the rental and running cost of the building and those staff could be integrated into more centralisation within the Bedford County Court group, one would have to hope that this would produce a more efficient administration to deal with possession proceedings which could actually benefit landlords.
There must surely now be a case for greater centralisation of possession claims. In my experience, using Possession Claims Online and Money Claims Online works well. I see no reason why that system should not work with the accelerated procedure (all that would be required would be some facility to upload copies of the tenancy agreement and Section 21 Notices). The vast majority of these cases are dealt with by paperwork and for these purposes a District Judge could sit on the moon to deal with the request for possession if need be. That would, admittedly, be a crushingly boring assignment, but I expect that the MOJ could call upon its ranks of Deputy District Judges to sit for one day each in a Central Accelerated Possession Procedure Court once or twice a year.
Food for thought?
Simon
You are probably right. And I think that closing down under performing courts could help improve efficiency – if the costs saved could actually be used elsewhere and did not just go to fill the yawning black hole of the budget deficit.
I suspect that the online accelerated procedure will come. Most firms should have scanning facilities to convert documents to pdfs which could then be uploaded easily.