Law centres challenge Ministry of Justice in High Court over housing possession court duty schemes
updated on 16 April 2018
Law centres have been granted permission to challenge the Ministry of Justice in the High Court over changes to housing possession court duty schemes (HPCDS), which provide on-the-day advice and advocacy services to people facing eviction.
Under HPCDS, anyone facing eviction or repossession of their home can access free legal advice and representation on the day of their court hearing, regardless of their financial means. However, the government has decided to cut the number of such schemes available to make contracts “more sustainable”, despite the opposition of 48 of the 59 organisations consulted. Ministers have also moved to introduce price competitive tendering, which would see contracts awarded to the lowest bidder, despite 51 out of 59 respondents to its consultation opposing the plan.
Now, as the Law Gazette reports, the government will have to defend its changes in the High Court after law centres’ application for a judicial review was approved. The two-day hearing will take place in May.
The judicial review proceedings demonstrate the feeling among law centres that they have reached their limit regarding the government’s continued cuts to legal aid provision. Julie Bishop, director of the Law Centres Network, said: “So far law centres have put up with all the changes to legal aid contracting from the unified contract to the LASPO [Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012] changes - each time at a cost of law centre closures. This time we have decided enough is enough. The decisions about the HPCD contract are not rational and potentially will impact significantly on law centres' core work. Attending the court duty schemes is important for law centres to advise vulnerable people at a time of real need. These are people who, by nature, do not seek help. This is why they end up in court facing eviction. The new contracting model therefore has a significant impact on access to justice and needs to be challenged.”
