The High Court has ordered the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to abandon its plans to restructure its legal aid schemes for housing possession and eviction work.
The case, Law Centres Federation v Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 1588 (Admin), concerned proposed changes to the Housing Possession Court Duty Scheme (HPCDS), which provide legal advice and advocacy to people at risk of losing their home, usually due to rent arrears or mortgage debt.
In a sharp rebuke to the MoJ, Mrs Justice Andrews held that the MoJ decision to contract for fewer but much larger housing solicitor duty desk schemes was ‘one that no reasonable decision-maker could reach on the state of the evidence that LAA [Legal Aid Agency] had gathered’. She ordered the MoJ to quash any new contracts.
The MoJ had decided to consolidate the existing 113 duty desk schemes into 47 schemes, and to move from fixed fees to a price competition among bidders, potentially driving fees lower.
The Law Centres Network (LCN), represented by the Public Law Project, argued the proposed changes were based on untested assumptions, therefore irrational, and there had not been proper analysis of its effect on people therefore there was a breach of the equality rule.
Delivering her judgment in [2018] EWHC 1588 (Admin), Andrews J said 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, LCN director, 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?’
An MoJ 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.’
