RPTS Transferring To HM Courts & Tribunals Service

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    RPTS Transferring To HM Courts & Tribunals Service

    RPTS’s sponsors in the Department of Communities & Local Government have agreed with the Ministry of Justice that RPTS should transfer to HM Courts & Tribunals Service, a next steps agency within the MoJ. The transfer is planned to take place on 1 July and was foreshadowed in the Government’s announcement about the future of Arms-Length Bodies on 14 October last year.

    There will be no significant changes either now or on 1 July. The aim is to make the transfer as seamless as possible and to preserve our quality of service. RPTS will keep its branding and logo for the first year after the transfer, and, subject to Parliamentary approval, will be absorbed into a new Property, Land & Housing Chamber within HMCTS in Spring 2012. The aim will be to make the transfer well-ordered and well-communicated. To this end, we have written to all our major stakeholders.

    RPTS has come a long way in the last ten years and our transfer can be seen as giving us a proper place in the judicial system. We look forward to continuing and developing our work within the new framework.
    http://www.rpts.gov.uk/news/news_articles/news8.htm


    Is this the end of (as some have predicted) LVT's ?

    Andy
    Advice given is based on my experience representing myself as a leaseholder both in the County Court and at Leasehold Valuation Tribunals.

    I do not accept any liability to you in relation to the advice given.

    It is always recommended you seek further advice from a solicitor or legal expert.

    Always read your lease first, it is the legally binding contract between leaseholder and freeholder.

    #2
    Hmm very interesting,
    Thanks Andy

    Comment


      #3
      I suspect not. It will be, I think, that if you have a dispute, you apply to the Service and it is allocated to the LVT and the decision then on to the court ( eg 146 proceedings). That stops the "court or LVT first" conundrum. It frees up court time on specialised matters,and may result, I hope in a same day hearing; i.e. breach established, and the judge rules there and then.

      But even with safeguards where the parties can submit in their application for say 14 days deferal to a hearing, this idea is too efficient for the government to actually do.
      Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
        I suspect not. It will be, I think, that if you have a dispute, you apply to the Service and it is allocated to the LVT and the decision then on to the court ( eg 146 proceedings). That stops the "court or LVT first" conundrum. It frees up court time on specialised matters,and may result, I hope in a same day hearing; i.e. breach established, and the judge rules there and then.

        But even with safeguards where the parties can submit in their application for say 14 days deferal to a hearing, this idea is too efficient for the government to actually do.

        Aha..There certainly is some confusion, at a recent small claim hearing, I was told that I should of applied to the LVT many years ago but at the time I was totally onblivious to even their existence, then only a few minutes later, the judge said that even many judges are still NOW not even aware of LVT's and their juridstiction and are unaware that they can transfer cases there..bizarre

        Andy
        Advice given is based on my experience representing myself as a leaseholder both in the County Court and at Leasehold Valuation Tribunals.

        I do not accept any liability to you in relation to the advice given.

        It is always recommended you seek further advice from a solicitor or legal expert.

        Always read your lease first, it is the legally binding contract between leaseholder and freeholder.

        Comment


          #5
          If we're really lucky they'll use the HMCTS processing facilities as well so that all users can suffer equal frustration. It's only fair.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Tulula View Post
            If we're really lucky they'll use the HMCTS processing facilities as well so that all users can suffer equal frustration. It's only fair.
            Yes. I've got a CC and an LVT case in progress at present and can't believe the difference. I communicate by email with the LVT.

            Last weekend I spent most of it preparing for a hearing at the CC and phoned on the Friday morning to check it was still on. Then on the Monday phoned again to find out that it had been vacated as a result of a letter from the Claimant received by the Court a week earlier. There is apparantly, on average, a 3 week backlog in processing mail. From my own limited experience of case management I imagine that their own failings generate 50% of their work.

            I wonder if the LVT cases will now be subject to the pre-action protocol directives that apply to court cases?

            Comment


              #7
              As much as we criticise the courts and the LVT these things do cost money. While a certain amount of public subsidy is required, perhaps we need to relearn that these are not free, and that we should put money aside or get a legal expenses policy, and not think flat + IKEA is the only expense we might ever incur.

              Similarly the ability to claim damages might persuade some the firms and landlords to act a little more responsibly as would licencing.

              But that would be too easy.
              Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                As much as we criticise the courts and the LVT these things do cost money. While a certain amount of public subsidy is required, perhaps we need to relearn that these are not free, and that we should put money aside or get a legal expenses policy, and not think flat + IKEA is the only expense we might ever incur.
                I think most landlords are aware of the costs and accept them as a necessary part of doing business, whether via fees or taxation.

                The main objection is to the inefficient, outdated system run by jobsworth, power crazed, incompetents.*

                Or maybe that's just my experience.


                *I realise not all staff are like that but they certainly have more than their fair share.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by boletus View Post
                  I think most landlords are aware of the costs and accept them as a necessary part of doing business, whether via fees or taxation.
                  But it is the leaseholders that do not. So many struggle to understand why service charge is needed ( I have written more than once about the magic cleaning pixies and insurance elfs after failing to get through to the most obstinate and those armed with googled information and irrelevant rationalisations).

                  Our consumer culture convinces us that our not reading the fine print, or a long lease ( not to mention the solicitors report and advice ( even though they are often cut and paste and rather useless) ) is somehow someone else's fault. And if it involves money, well then someone else has to pay...as I am the victim...

                  But then it is so much hard work reading the IKEA catalog and choosing the poor souls have no time to think about the obligation and risk that the single biggest investment, as well as the roof over their head, might entail.

                  If we could change that culture then we could pay the courts a not for profit fee structure and have access to "justice". The legal aid budget could then be spent on those that really do need it.
                  Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Fine sentiments but unfortunately things are going in the opposite direction. I have never seen a public service deteriorate as quickly as the court service has in the last couple of years. To add insult to injury, legal aid is also being slashed. That leaves most ordinary people with the choice of either doing it themselves (with all that that entails when trying to deal with HMCTS) or simply not seeking the justice they may well deserve.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Well one side of the recession-depression is that markets re adjust, and so should we. Legal Expenses insurance is £15 to £40 on top of a policy.

                      For the many who moan about how hard done they are, and how the government should do something about it, they are still buying a sandwich for lunch and swill down a latte and grumble about only going out two nights a week and not four, they need to re think their priorities. Let the courts charge a decent rate.

                      For the few to whom £40 is the difference between eating or not, that's where legal aid should go to ( And not to a resident of a near Harrods apartment who qualifies as their partner is a tax "non dom"...).
                      Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                        Well one side of the recession-depression is that markets re adjust, and so should we. Legal Expenses insurance is £15 to £40 on top of a policy.
                        Whatever the source of funding, the current situation needs to be changed. It appears to me to be so inefficient that in the end more work is being generated and more Judges time wasted.

                        I worked for the government for a couple of years after being either self employed or working for commercial organisations for most of my working life and was shocked to see how the 'job for life and then a nice pension' mentality and 'no blame' culture fostered laziness and incompetance.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Well I am not surprised after seeing a notice in government office saying that due to cutbacks and staff layoffs they were very busy and overworked.

                          I am not sure if may authorities let alone private companies would tolerate that.
                          Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                            Well I am not surprised after seeing a notice in government office saying that due to cutbacks and staff layoffs they were very busy and overworked.
                            Yes, but what was their excuse before the cutbacks?

                            I am not sure if may authorities let alone private companies would tolerate that.
                            Well if there's no money to pay wages then there's nothing anybody can do. They just have to tolerate it.

                            In the public sector the Government could put up taxes but I think you'd see any support for the public sector workers dissapear rather quickly if people were asked to pay more tax.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                              Well I am not surprised after seeing a notice in government office saying that due to cutbacks and staff layoffs they were very busy and overworked.
                              So before the cutbacks were they underworked and not very busy?

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X