If I have
to be completely honest, I have never actively thought about getting involved in
pro bono work. I think, for me at least, it has always been part of my internal
ethical character – to help people who find themselves in unfortunate
circumstances, mainly in part because of my personal circumstances. I had worked
many years in social welfare, as well as doing voluntary work in the community,
and assisting several government initiatives (in Trinidad and Tobago) to help
those who were not capable of helping themselves.
Since March
2018, I have been volunteering as an adviser in the advice centre at my local
community centre. I would like to think that I have made a difference in the
lives of the clients who visit seeking assistance. I have had success stories;
for example, the single mother living on benefits who bought a cooker which was
defective – condemned within a few days of purchase – and the company refused to
replace it or refund the money, for nearly one year. Law students will know that this is a breach of
the Consumer Rights Act 2015. After I got involved, it was replaced within a
couple of weeks. I remember when the client came to say thank you, she literally
had tears in her eyes, as she could not afford to buy a new
cooker.
I see many
people who have been living in atrocious circumstances. Usually, it is the City
Council which is most at fault but also private landlords. Many times, repairs
are not done in a timely or adequate manner and can cause significant health
problems for tenants. Mould and damp are much too common and cause respiratory
problems. It is not an exaggeration to say that many of these problems put the
health of little children at risk – considerably more so than adults. The
problem is so bad that I now have a standard paragraph in my complaint
letters:
“The RSPCA
would certainly disapprove of an animal living under these conditions! In fact,
I dare say that the owner of any animal living in such accommodation would soon
be prosecuted in court.”
The fact
that Councils try to balance the use of resources against the health and
well-being of tenants is certainly not a problem as far as the rights of tenants
are concerned – Hotak& Ors v London
Borough of Southwark & Anor (Rev 1) [2015] UKSC 30 made that very
clear:
“an
authority’s duty under Part VII of the 1996 (Housing) Act is not to be
influenced or affected by the resources available to the authority. Once they
have determined the status of an applicant under Part VII of the 1996 Act, their
duty to that applicant is as defined in the Act: the
fact that the authority may be very short of money and/or available
accommodation cannot in any way affect whether an applicant is in priority
need. In so far as a balancing exercise between housing the homeless and
conserving local authority resources is appropriate, it has been carried out by
Parliament when enacting Part VII.” [Emphasis added].
“Aha!”, you
may say, “That only refers to homeless people.”
Well, under
the Homelessness Code of Conduct Guidance, “a
person who has accommodation is to be treated as homeless where it would not be
reasonable for them to continue to occupy that accommodation.” [Emphasis
added].
On 2
November 2018 I represented a client in Small Claims Court, pursuant to Section
3(1) of the Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999, and as set out
in CPR 27 and PD 27, paras. 3.1 and 3.2.
The client
had a leaking roof since 2010. The City Council owned the property then and did
not do any effective repairs. In 2016, the client bought the apartment he was
living in. It was one apartment, in a building that contained 4 such apartments.
The result was that he owned the apartment under a lease for the building, which
was still owned by the Council and who was still responsible for repairs to the
outside of the apartment where the client lived, including the roof of
course.
The leak in
the roof continued up to February 2018 this year when the client filed his claim
in court, then the Council hastily put down a tar covering on the roof to stop
the leak. It wasn’t enough, as by then 8 years of leaks had damaged his
apartment to some severity. He was so stressed he had to be medicated and
treated for depression and anxiety.
At court,
the Council was represented by a barrister, a solicitor and a junior lawyer.
Plus, the Council’s witness who was the person responsible for the computer
system that logs the repair calls and passes the jobs to the repair contractors.
This witness brought in a partial list of the call logs for the past 8 years
showing that when the tenant (my client) called to get repairs done, he was not
at home when the workers turned up. 13 pages of call logs.
But here is
the Council’s mistake. The barrister argued first that the tenant, my client,
had a responsibility to call the Council to repair the roof. Well, the very fact
that there were 13 pages of call logs was like shooting themselves in the head,
right? I couldn’t believe a qualified barrister made such an elementary
error.
Second, he
argued that the tenant/my client should be home to allow access to the roof. I
merely pointed out to the judge that the Council’s own witness said in his
witness statement that the roof was accessed at least twice using an elevated
electrical platform from outside and that was at times the tenant was not at
home. So that was another headshot, right?
The result
was that the judge agreed that my client had no duty to inform the Council more
than he already did, that he was not needed to access the roof and that the
statutory law, as well as his lease, made the Council responsible for the
repairs. He was awarded £6000, plus costs.
There are
some lessons to learn from the anecdotes I related:
a) No matter
how experienced you are in law, you can make elementary mistakes. In fact, the
more experienced you are, the more you have to watch that you do not overlook
very basic principles and ideas.
b) Do not be
intimidated by the ‘big names’ opposing you. Prepare your argument well, and you
have nothing to fear, or be ashamed of.
c) The law is
not contained only in statute or statutory instruments. There may be guidance
orders, case law etc and a well-prepared argument involves spending time on
research, even if you do not need it in court or in your arguments. Better be
prepared.
d) Don’t be
afraid to assert yourself and your client’s (really your) argument. I can be
assertive to the point of being aggressive, as you can see. Experience has
taught me that being too polite gets you ignored.
e) The law is
both a shield, to protect your clients, and a sword, to assert their rights.
Used appropriately, the battle is half-won.
f) Mind
map everything. I actually presented my case to the judge as a printed mind
map.
g) Clearly
state that you are making a “formal
complaint” when writing your complaint letter/email. Without the use of the
words ‘formal complaint’, a complaint is treated as an informal complaint and
there is no requirement to act upon it (advice from the Housing
Ombudsman).
h) Always put
complaints in writing. Never by phone calls – but if you do make calls, log the
date, time and name of the person taking the complaint.
i) Keep
copies of all your documents. You may need them as evidence if you need to go to
court.
j) Resolving problems take time. Don’t get (too)
impatient but follow the policies and complaint procedures and allow the time
limits for responses and resolution.
k) Do not
hesitate to escalate your complaints. Remember, the law does not help those who
‘slumber’ on their rights.
There may
be other lessons that more experienced lawyers can share. This is a few that I
have learnt in my volunteering experience so far.
I hope more
people do get into pro bono work.