More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Assured Shorthold tenancy
Benefits and care
Housing Conditions
Housing law - All
Introductory and Demoted tenancies
Leasehold and shared ownership
Licences and occupiers
Mortgage possession
Regulation and planning
Trusts and Estoppel
Unlawful eviction and harassment

A brief interlude: The disaster

By Dave

While my NL colleagues are reporting hard law and dealing with lots of important stuff, with so much more to come, I have but a mere puff to offer for a Friday afternoon.  It’s about the new government website to which departments, including DCLG, have (or are) migrating.  It’s just woeful and has really annoyed the NL team – I’m up for it to be put on the naughty step but have neither the writing skill nor the jpeg to do so.  In the current climate when so many more litigants in person are anticipated, it’s really important that all the information on it is right, up-to-date and accurate; and at least some of it is just not right and/or misleading.

It’s fair to say that I loved the old DCLG website.  It was all there and I knew where to find it.  The search function was excellent.  I don’t have NL or Francis’ technical skill, so I need something pretty basic, intuitive, up-to-date and accurate.  Because at heart I’m an academic, I also need lots of information, and the fuller the better.  That’s equally true for both documents and housing statistics.  The latter, I suspect, are equally important to lawyers not just for general interest but also for expanding on more technical points.  There was a lot of political guff on the DCLG website, especially when Shapps and Rooker were housing ministers (to the extent that a new adjective was created – shappstastic – which had a limited popularity) but you came to expect that and some of it was just, well, laughable.

Now, the new government website might, in principle, be a good idea.  I can see that the collection of relevant government departments together might add to a holistic policy analysis and cross-departmental working, as well as transparency.  But, not like this.  It’s a complete disaster.  The DCLG housing stuff is hard to find and the search function is awful.  Add to that the information available appears to have gone through some sort of dumbing down process.  Francis first alerted me to this dumbing down last week.  But, it’s not just dumbing down; Francis also pointed out rightly that some of the information is wrong and/or misleading and/or provides some wrong ideas to the casual reader.  If one wanted further information to clarify some of the issues, a reader would be equally non-plussed (except you lot who will always come here looking).  Francis drew attention to these links by way of examples:

LVT appeals where there is a change in a lease;

RAC appeals concerning disputes about rent;

private renting evictions

I’m not just being a bit lazy in not looking for others; but also a bit fearful.  What in god’s name will it say about homelessness/allocations or “affordable tenancies” or eligibility (!) or security of tenure or mortgage evictions.

Of course, information has to be provided in fairly simple, transparent terms, but housing law isn’t really that simple and transparent at the best of times (note to policy makers and website designers: it would have been better if the Law Commission’s Renting Homes work had been implemented; but we can whistle for that – in England at any rate).

And then there’s the stats.  There’s stuff missing, less is now being collected (austerity cuts – if you want some stats that used to be free, you now have to pay), they’re difficult to find; and we are left in a rather uncomfortable position that when we want to know something, or evaluate a government programme, or just raise an issue, the data may well not be there.

Now that’s just not transparent government.


1 Comment

  1. westminster

    I have tried several times to report the various misinformation on the ‘eviction’ and related pages, and cited statute (and case law once) in support. A real person replies, and says they’ll look into it, then nothing happens. No surprises there (though it seems unlikely they’re deluged with busybodies like me pointing out the problems…)

    However, one follow up reply I received, back in December, said “They know the information in [sic] out of date and we are just waiting on an updated brief to update the content.”

    Of course, it’s nothing to do with being ‘out of date’. It’s facepalmingly bad that can’t muster up someone even half-competent to draft these pages. I’m a layperson and I could do better and, like you, I dread to delve further.


Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.