Were ‘Review Dates’ an Effective Part of the Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Housing Possession Cases in England and Wales? Views from the Frontline: Part 1

Abstract

This is the first part of an article that offers an assessment of one aspect of the court system’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic in housing possession cases in England and Wales, namely, the Review or ‘R date’. Drawing on data supplied by those at the forefront of the arrears and possessions process, both parts offer a snapshot of an extraordinary period of turmoil and change. Measures that would previously have been considered unthinkable were introduced with uncharacteristic speed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Measures such as the imposition of a stay on all possession hearings, a ban on bailiff enforced evictions (other than in the most serious cases), extended notice periods for tenants, and moratorium on the enforcement of mortgage possession proceedings, although mortgagees were still permitted to seek a possession order.

As we return to the pre-COVID ways of doing things, evidence suggests that the pandemic will continue to impact on the possession process for years to come. Not least will be the need to deal with a substantial backlog of cases and a possible rise in the number of new cases as a result of reduced household finances It is imperative therefore that lessons are learned from the initial response to the pandemic.

The articles offer an assessment of one of the temporary measures introduced between 17 September 2020 and 1 November 2021, known as the ‘R date’ which was introduced as part of the larger package of measures known as the ‘Overall Arrangements’(OA). In assessing the effectiveness of the R date, the yardstick used herein derives from the objectives set out by the architects of the court system’s response, the Master of the Rolls Working Group on Possession Proceedings (the Working Group). Those objectives were:
(a) reducing volume in the system by enabling earlier advice and increasing settlement,
(b) taking account, within limits that the law has imposed, of the effect of the pandemic on all parties, and
(c) maintaining confidence in the fairness of outcomes.

In addition to these COVID specific objectives is the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which is to enable the courts to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. In assessing the extent to which these objectives have been met, this article supplements existing research with original first-hand accounts from those most closely associated with the possession process, namely, occupiers, debt advisers, landlords (private and social), legal practitioners (who represent landlords and mortgage lenders) and duty advisers, particularly legal practitioners who offer free legal advice to occupiers through the Housing Possession Court Duty Scheme (HPCDS). What the findings of this project reveal is that while the R date did not prove as effective as might have been hoped, it should be retained into the post-pandemic era.

More information

Identifiers

ORCID for Lisa Whitehouse: orcid.org/0000-0002-6760-1818

Catalogue record

Export record