The corporate way of dealing with complaints

A couple of weeks ago I was concerned as my online bank statement seemed to be showing me as not having any available cash when I knew for a fact that I did. The lady at the bank told me to speak to their online banking customer services department. I duly did this and they said they would get back to me.

A lady has just rung me about it. As the complaint was made two weeks ago I had forgotten all about it. Also she rang me just when I was in the middle of writing something complex, and I did not particularly want to discuss it, neither did I really want her ringing me back about it.

No doubt she will now tick her boxes to show that she has satisfactorily dealt with another customer complaint, thus improving the banks customer service statistics. It’s a great way of dealing with customer complaints, apart from the fact that the customer (i.e. me) does not feel particularly happy about it.

The Courts have an even better way. It is now almost impossible to get through to the courts to speak to a real person (certainly this is the case in the busier London courts) unless you are prepared to hang on for hours. Although I rang a Court recently which did not even give me that option, but only the option of leaving a message.

So the only thing to do is to write. This leads to the following ridiculous scenario:

1. A client contacts me, unhappy about the court failing to do something
2. I try to ring the court, can’t get through. Not having all day to hang on the phone (I do have other clients) I send a fax, asking what is happening
3. Several weeks later the court write about the thing the client contacted me about.
4. Several weeks after that, I get a letter in reply to my fax, saying that the thing I was asking about was dealt with a couple of weeks ago
5. No doubt the clerk then ticks a box to say that the complaint has been satisfactorily dealt with

This has happened to me several times.

I also know of a case where a solicitor wrote to a court asking them not to list a hearing on a particular day for a particuarly important reason. However the court lost the letter and listed it on that day. When the solicitor rang to complain, he was told that he would have to write in about it!

Its madness!

Dr Ian Gibson MP

Leaving landlord and tenant law to one side for a moment, as a Norwich Citizen, I would like to make a statement in support of Dr Ian Gibson. He is, I know, a hardworking and conscientious constituency MP, who has stood up for what he believed in, and is one of the very few qualified scientists in the house.

When I read in the paper about the 'Star Chamber' hearing which concluded that he should be de-selected, I was reminded of the many cases I hear (when taking statements with my husband for his employment tribunal practice) where an employee is dismissed after a 'disciplinary hearing', which is not really a hearing because the deciders have already made their minds up. However employees can bring a claim to tribunal. Dr Gibson has no redress.

He is reported as saying that he has broken no rules and still has not been told exactly what he has done wrong. From what I have read, it seems that he is being criticised for allowing his daughter and her partner to live rent free in his flat, and then selling it to them at an undervalue. However

• No one is denying that Dr Gibson lived in the flat for about three days in most weeks
  
• His daughter was apparently not permitted under the 'rules' to pay him rent or contribute towards the utility bills (why not?)
  
• It was sensible (prudent even) for security reasons, to have someone else living in the flat, so it was not empty when Dr Gibson was away

As for selling the flat at an undervalue, only Dr Gibson lost out financially here. Sure the daughter had a windfall, but so have many other people in all sorts of circumstances. I can think of far more reprehensible things to do than providing for your family.

I think it is enormously unfair that Dr Gibson has been singled out in this way, when other MPs have not. I would suggest it is the rules which are a fault rather than Dr Gibson. If what he did was so wrong, why did the fees office not tell him so? There is a nasty suspicion as well, that he was thrown to the wolves because he has not been afraid to speak his mind against the government in the past.

I am also concerned that everyone seems to be quite happy for their to be a 'Star Chamber' at all. To quote Wikipedia, the Star Chamber in the sixteenth century became "a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts". Is this what we want in England today?

I am concerned that most people appear to consider this sort of thing acceptable, and are happy to condone trial by newspaper and dismissal of a decent hard working MP by an process which appears to be unconstitutional and against natural justice.

Legal Services Commission is arrogant and devious says former supervising solicitor

Although it is not directly related to housing law, I feel I ought to draw readers attention to an excellent comment in the Law Society Gazette from Michael Burdett who previously helped the Legal Services Commission (LSC) to set up the CDS (i.e. Criminal Defence Service) direct scheme.

As someone who has worked with the LSC he ought to know something about them. His view is that the savings claimed for the expanded CDS Direct scheme are misrepresented and that the LSC have failed to answer his request for a breakdown of how they have been calculated. He goes on to say that the expanded CDS is probably of questionable legality, that the ‘hypocritical and bureaucratic attitude’ shown by the LSC in this is being replicated elsewhere, and that their ‘arrogant and devious approach’ towards reform of both civil and criminal legal aid has destroyed the goodwill of the profession.

This is all so sad. In the 1940s when legal aid was first set up, it was conceived as a twin service to the National Health Service. So people of modest means would have access to both medical and legal help. When I first started work as a lawyer all firms did legal aid, even the very large ones. Now hardly anyone does. When tenants on benefit ring me up asking for representation, it is very difficult to think of anywhere I can refer them other than our local Shelter office.

As Michael Burdett says in his article, it is worrying that people’s right to legal help is being circumscribed at a time when the police and the state are being given unprecedented powers over the citizen.

We are told that all this is in the interests of the taxpayer as it will cost less. But this just reflects my blog item below – things being valued solely on the basis of how much they cost. And is a miniscule reduction in our tax really an adequate compensation for being unable to receive independent legal help if we are unjustly detained by the police? As others have pointed out, compared to the National Health Service budget and defence costs, the Legal Aid Budget is miniscule.

It is all very worrying.

EPCs - a step in the right direction

Reading my Observer today, I came across an article on Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), which as many of you will be aware, will need to be provided by landlords to prospective new tenants after 1 October.

The article however is more than a bit on the negative side, pointing out that landlords have no compulsion to carry out any of the recommendations set out in the EPCs, and that older properties will appear in a bad light not withstanding the fact that landlords may have done all they can. It also claimed that the EPCs could cause friction if tenants found that their bills bore no relation to the examples in the EPC, although one source seemed to think that that most people would not take any notice of them (or no one would ever rent a thatched cottage).

All of this may well be true, but surely the point of EPCs is that it will force people at least momentarily to think about energy efficiency, and will make landlords and tenants aware of what can be done to reduce usage. Surely that has to be a good thing?

We keep reading about how we are going to have to take huge steps to reduce our carbon footprint, but whenever any practical steps are attempted to actually do something about it, this barrage of negativity is put up. EPCs are a waste of time. Low energy light bulbs are not bright enough to see by. Wind turbines are noisy and spoil the view. The Severn Barrage will adversely affect migratory birds and fish. This sort of attitude is not really helpful, bearing in mind the amount of carbon reduction we are going to have to do to have any chance of affecting climate change.

I think that EPCs are an excellent idea. In order to do something about a problem you need information to help you make the correct decision, and this is precisely where the EPCs can help. It is not a perfect solution of course (nothing ever is), but it is a start. Some landlords will probably ignore them, as will some tenants, but I expect many others will take notice of them, and will carry out at least some of the recommendations. That has got to be good.

It is all very well people talking about new buildings and eco towns, but most of us live in older properties, which were built in times when energy efficiency was not a priority. We need to adapt our homes to meet the new situation, and many of us have no idea how to do this. Mandatory EPCs to be provided whenever properties are sold and rented out is at least a start.

More tenants evicted by landlords mortgagees

I have been contacted by another tenant today, who is being evicted by her landlords mortgage company. Her situation is not quite as bad as that of my clients in my previous post, as no order for possession has been made yet (the hearing is in July). However she was not at all happy to receive the notice of proceedings from the mortgagees solicitors two months into an eighteen month fixed term! Particularly as she had just paid to have broadband connected.

Once again I question the role of the letting agents here. In this case the tenant has found out that the landlord has probably been in arrears of rent for quite a long period, it could even be a year. As well as this it seems that the landlord failed to obtain consent for the letting from his head lessor. If a tenant can find these things out, why can’t the agent?

Is it right for a letting agent to be able to let a property which is obviously vulnerable to repossession, and after it is let (and their commission paid – taken from the tenants rent of course), not be liable in any way when the property is repossessed? Should they not be obliged to carry out at least some rudimentary checking?

The agents in this particular case are a large high profile London firm of estate and letting agents. When a tenant is renting a property from a professional agency such as this, they do tend to assume that they will at least be able to live in the property without being evicted two months into the term!

It is arguable that in such a situation, particularly as it is a business/consumer situation, there should be some sort of tortuous liability on the agent to ensure that the properties on their list are not vulnerable to repossession, at least during the initial fixed term.

Incidentally, the Civil Justice Council has recently carried out a consultation on a proposed new mortgage repossession pre action protocol (the consultation period finished on 23 May) but this does not appear to consider the situation of innocent tenants.

Housing law in crisis

The Law Society Gazette was rather a worrying read this week. Amid tales of criminal legal aid solicitors going on strike, and DCA leadership not being fit for purpose, was this news item on plummeting legal aid housing contracts which have fallen from 840 to 587 – a drop of some 30%. A bet that there are quite a few housing law deserts out there – 587 firms cannot cover the whole country, particularly as I suspect quite a few of those are in London.

I attended a housing conference last week. The speaker on unlawful eviction confirmed that in his experience the police simply refuse to take any action when someone is illegally evicted - despite that fact that it is a criminal offence. And yet being unlawfully evicted from your home must be the most traumatic experience.

So if the poor old illegally evicted tenant can’t get any help from the police and there are hardly any legal aid housing solicitors for him to consult – how is he going to be able to enforce his rights to re-instatement (if he wants it) and compensation? Drafting a decent court claim for compensation for unlawful eviction is not easy as there are so many different causes of action – it would be a difficult job for most litigation solicitors, let alone a litigant in person.

Its not fair is it? And what is the point of making something a criminal offence if the police refuse to deal with it?

Unbelievable arrogance

I have just had the dubious pleasure of watching Vera Baird QC, our legal aid minister, being questioned on Channel 4 lunchtime news about the legal aid reforms. When asked how vulnerable clients were going to manage if they have to travel up to 50 miles to get essential legal advice, she just shook her head in a patronizing manner and said that that this was simply not going to happen.

Actually, she told us, it is going to be better for everyone after the reforms come in, because (she implied) solicitors will be forced to manage their practices properly which will mean more money and work for all. In fact, those silly old solicitors are just making a fuss about nothing and will soon be grateful to the government for making them carry out these essential changes which will make their working lives so much better.

How stupid is she? Does she not know that all legal aid practices have had years of efficiency measures being imposed on them, auditing, five year plans, cost cutting exercises and the like. Does she really think that she, a government minister and barrister, knows better than the partners how to run a legal aid firm? And does she really think that solicitors are going to carry on doing legal aid work if these reforms come in, when there is other much more profitable work to be done? It is not solicitors, remember, who are going to suffer for all this, it is the clients.

So far as I can see there are two possible reasons for the governments attitude. One is that they want to kill the legal profession dead because an active legal profession is an embarrassment to them as they keep pointing out problems in their legislative program etc. The other is that they don’t have the cash and the Health Service is a more popular destination for any cash that they do have. I really hope it is the second, but sometimes I get paranoid and wonder if it is the first.

But if I had not given up legal aid work a long time ago, I would be very much tempted to give it up now and to write to Ms Baird and tell her that it was her smug patronizing attitude which had been the last straw.

If you feel as annoyed about all this as I do, support the Law Societies "What price Justice?" campagn.

A rant against government stupidity

It has now been officially confirmed that the introduction of the tenancy deposit scheme has been put back to April 2007. One of the reasons apparently is that during consultation the landlords organizations complained that the way the scheme was set up, if the tenant did a runner leaving rent arrears, the scheme would not release the deposit to the landlord who would have to go to court to get a CCJ first!

I sometimes wonder what the people in charge of things nowadays use for brains. Surely it must have been obvious that this is unfair? Why was it necessary for the landlords organisations to have to point this out?

Another backtrack that has taken place recently is the decision to remove the home condition reports from HIPS (or at least not make them mandatory). Conveyancing is not my subject but colleagues who specialize in this work have been saying for months that the system is misconceived, was designed to solve a problem that did not really exist, and that it would probably prove to be unworkable. Now the government are looking silly. Why don’t they listen to advice?

Another own goal is their attempt to destroy the legal profession by threatening their independence, which as reported in The Times today is the subject of severe criticism by a parliamentary committee. Indeed the new President of the Law Society has said that the new wide and "unnecessary" powers taken by the Lord Chancellor will allow him to intervene in law firms - or even dictate that "every solicitor should have a blue-screen saver", if he wanted. Already foreign bars, for example Germany, have warned that if other proposed ‘reforms’ to allow firms to be owned by businesses go ahead they will not be willing to deal with them. The legal profession, particularly in the city, brings in huge sums to this country and is widely respected – why should the government wish to threaten this? What good will it do? Apart from removing the possibility that a vigorous legal profession might undermine half baked government initiatives, that is.

One reason for all of the above may be the desire to appease the consumers organisations (who support all these initiatives) at all costs, and accepting what they say without question. I have no quarrel with ensuring a fair deal for consumers, but the consumer organisations do appear to be unnecessarily skewed against landlords and the legal profession. But it will be dangerous to undermine either as this country needs landlords (to house those who cannot afford to buy) and an independent legal profession.

All change at the ODPM

I wish government departments would make up their mind what they want to call themselves. Until Mr Prescott’s shenanigans with his secretary, the department with responsibility for housing was the department of the Office Deputy Prime Minister – odpm for short. And the web-site where we found all the stuff was www.odpm.gov.uk.

However now its Ruth Kelly, so the department (or the bit of it that she is in charge of) has changed its name to the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the web-site changed to www.dclg.gov.uk. So, all references to this on my web-site had to be changed so people following them were not at risk of getting the dreaded ‘page not found’ page. Which took a while, because I have a lot of links (many of them only put in quite recently, when I updated the HMO section). However, now I look at the site and see that they have another new website url, www.communities.gov.uk.

Why can’t they just stick to the one name and the one web-address? Its such a lot of bother for us all keeping up with it. And I dread to think how many man hours have been and will be wasted at the dear old DCLG itself, dealing with these changes, and how much stationary will be redundant because it has the wrong name on it. Such a lot of waste and bother. So unnecessary. So annoying. So typical of government.