Tag Archive for 'funding'

Page 2 of 3

Access to Justice

By NL on 16/04/2010. 6 Comments

An anecdotal rant, for which forgive me. Sometimes one needs to vent, but this is hardly an unusual situation. It is ‘just’ an example of the viciousness of the public funding boundaries. I’ve combined a few instances in what follows, and changed details for the obvious reasons, but all the salient points are true.

Let us say that I just saw a prospective new client, who had received notice of warrant. She was a Council secure tenant and the issue was rent arrears of several thousand pounds. Various reasons given, but alas none of them involving housing benefit.

The original possession order – which she didn’t have to show me … Read the full post

Posted in Disrepair, Housing law - All, Possession and secure-tenancy. Tags: , .

Jackson: the waiting begins

By NL on 14/01/2010. 5 Comments

‘What!’ I hear you say, ‘wasn’t the final Jackson report on costs released on 14 January?’

Why yes it was. All 584 pages of it. But amid the headlines about scrapping CFA success fees and recoverable ATE insurance premiums, introducing contingency fees, and of course fixed costs for the fast track, for housing lawyers it comes down to a few paragraphs which largely amount to… wait and see. Here, filleted for your ease and comfort are what look like the key bits to me.

Jackson LJ notes that housing law is a hideously complicated mess (my paraphrase), that this is likely to push up litigation costs, and that the … Read the full post

Posted in Disrepair, Housing law - All, Possession and Various (non-housing). Tags: , , .

Retrospective CFAs on appeal

By NL on 21/01/2009. 0 Comments

Birmingham City Council v Forde [2009] EWHC 12 (QB) was the High Court hearing of Birmingham’s appeal from the High Court (Costs) case we reported on in August last year.

In short, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Costs Judge upheld, but in a lengthy and detailed judgment, there are some considerable differences to the reasoning and the findings of the Costs Judge that are worth noting. In particular, the new elements are:

i) the finding that there is no policy, or other, reason why CFAs, including the success fee, should not be retrospectively effective; (with the exception of when proceedings had been issued and notice of funding … Read the full post

Posted in Disrepair, FLW case note and Housing law - All. Tags: , , , .

Views and news from Hlpa meeting

By NL on 17/09/2008. 2 Comments

The Hlpa meeting tonight (17/9/08) was a particularly interesting one, on the topic of disrepair. Talks were from Mel Cairns, Andrew Brookes of Anthony Gold and Marina Sergides of Garden Court.

Among the end of meeting news items were:

  • The current intent is that the main body of the Housing & Regeneration Act, including the tolerated trespasser provisions, will come into force on 6 April 2009.
  • New Housing Benefit regs coming into force on 6 October 2008 mean that HB backdating claims can only be made for 6 months (for those of working age) and 3 months (for pensioners). Not good news.

There were a few surprises for me arising … Read the full post

Posted in Benefits, Disrepair and Housing law - All. Tags: , , , , .

Retrospective CFAs

By NL on 04/08/2008. 0 Comments

Forde v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 90105 (Costs)

In brief, where a firm had asked a client to sign a second CFA for a disrepair claim, at a time when it appeared that the first CFA might be found unenforceable, and the second CFA provided for a success fee where the first one didn’t:

a) was the second CFA unenforceable because it concerns matters contained in the first CFA?

b) was the second CFA unenforceable because it is retrospective?

c) what period is covered by the second CFA?

d) is the success fee retrospective?

e) when a second CFA is signed at a time when a firm offer is … Read the full post

Posted in Disrepair, FLW case note and Housing law - All. Tags: , , , .

The value of disinterest

By NL on 07/05/2008. 5 Comments

That’s disinterestedness, not uninterestedness, should anybody who went to school after about 1990 be reading this. Does nobody really read Kant any more? But, in a rather dismal demonstration of the trope of irony, this is likely to be an outright rant on the virtues of disinterest.

While most of us were focussed on the immediate effects of the Civil Legal Aid reforms on the financial viability of the private legal aid firms and the not-for-profit sector, there is another aspect which threatens not so much the viability as the foundational values of practice in the area. It has certainly not gone unnoticed, but perhaps had fewer headlines and caused … Read the full post

Posted in Various (non-housing). Tags: , , , .

LSC Judicial Review Mk 2

By NL on 31/01/2008. 0 Comments

The Law Society is (just about) to file the second Judicial Review application of the Civil legal aid Unified Contract, this time arguing that, following the Court of Appeal judgment in the first JR, the LSC has to address the illegality of the current fixed fee scheme having been introduced under the unlawful unilateral amendment clause.

The LSC denies that the fees were introduced under the clause but has failed to adequately explain under what other provision they were introduced.

The LSC has already announced it is withdrawing the Unified Contract, apparently now suggesting a new contract in October 2008 (LSC response letter [PDF]), but if the Law Society … Read the full post

Posted in Various (non-housing). Tags: , , , .
row of sheds footer image
3 pages