Law Centres Network wins battle with MoJ over housing legal aid scheme changes

A High Court judge has quashed changes introduced by the Ministry of Justice to the Housing Possession Court Duty Scheme (HPCDS), it has been reported.

The MoJ had planned to consolidate the current 113 HPCDS across England and Wales into only 47 schemes, each covering larger geographical areas.

The MoJ had also decided to move from contracting the service at fixed fees it sets to a price competition among bidders.

The Law Centres Network, which challenged the changes to the schemes, said Mrs Justice Andrews had today [22 June] ordered that the new contracts, already tendered for, be quashed.

The Law Centres Network argued before the judge that:

• The MoJ rearranged HPCDS based on questionable, untested assumptions (an irrationality challenge).
• The MoJ acted without proper analysis of its effect on people for whom the service was intended (an equality challenge).

The claimant said the judge had upheld both claims. “She concluded that MoJ did not meet its duty to properly acquaint itself with relevant material (known as a Tameside duty). She wrote that ‘this decision was one that no reasonable decision-maker could reach on the state of the evidence that LAA [Legal Aid Agency] had gathered... no data was available to connect small schemes with lack of viability’.”

The Law Centres Network also said the judge had been similarly critical of equalities implications, with Mrs Justice Andrews writing there was “a real risk that... clients using the HPCD service will no longer have the same access to the 'wrap around' services that are not covered by Legal Aid and which may make all the difference to whether they end up homeless and destitute”.

Julie Bishop, director of the Law Centres Network, said: “This judicial review arose from our deep concern about the impact of changes, proposed for no good reason, on people about to lose their home. With early legal advice almost entirely cut, duty desks are key to reaching people who could not find or access prior help.

“How can legal aid be a public service that is fit for purpose if it only solves part of people’s problems? We are sick to death of changes being imposed that have no regard for the real-life situations people face. Rather than thinking up problems that do not exist, this is the problem that MoJ should solve.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Our proposed reforms recognised the value of this vital service and made no change to the funding provided, however we will carefully consider this judgment and respond in due course.

“There will be no immediate impact on those needing emergency housing advice, nor representation for homeowners facing repossession and we will ensure this is the case going forward.”