Too many weak housing cases receive legal aid, denying access to justice for many people of modest means with stronger cases, according to the Social Housing Law Association (SHLA).


In a policy statement on the need for legal aid reform, the SHLA said it was concerned that many who are ineligible for legal aid on grounds of income, despite only having modest means, are denied access to justice even though their cases have a reasonable prospect of success.



The SHLA also suggested that the use of public money to bring and defend weak cases caused social landlords to spend more on legal proceedings than they should have to.



SHLA chairman Jon Holbrook said: 'The key problem is costs protection, which creates an unlevel playing field between tenants with legal aid, who invariably will not have to pay the winner's costs, no matter how weak the tenant's case is, and landlords who invariably will have to pay the winner's costs.



'It creates a situation whereby so far as costs are concerned it's "heads the tenant wins, tails the landlord loses".'



The SHLA proposed reform of costs protection, so that the Legal Services Commission (LSC) could be required to pay the winning party's costs where the funded party lost. It also suggested tightening the merits test and relaxing the means test.



The LSC spends £24 million annually on housing advice, yet according to the SHLA has little idea what proportion of the cases are won or lost, as it uses the lower and subjective test of whether the funded party received a substantive benefit.



According to the SHLA, of cases reported in the 2005 Housing Law Reports, 44 involved social landlords. Tenants (who will have received legal aid unless appearing in person) initiated 80% and won 23%, while 20% were initiated by social landlords, who won 77%.



An LSC spokesman said: 'Legal aid in housing disputes has a vital role in safeguarding the interests of many vulnerable clients. We must be careful not to remove existing protection for such clients, especially those in danger of losing their homes.'



He denied that the LSC did not hold data on the outcome of cases and said 60% of funded cases concluded in 2006/07 achieved a substantive benefit for the client.



Catherine Baksi