HL Deb 10 July 1996 vol 574 cc398-400

(".—(1) Procedure regulations may make provision in relation to proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal—

  1. (a) for the holding of a pre-trial review, on the application of a party to the proceedings or of the tribunal's own motion; and
  2. (b) for the exercise of the functions of the tribunal in relation to, or at, a pre-trial review by a single member who is qualified to exercise them.

(2) In subsection (1) "procedure regulations" means regulations under section 74(1)(b) of the Rent Act 1977, as that section applies in relation to leasehold valuation tribunals.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)—

  1. (a) a "member" means a member of the panel provided for in Schedule 10 to that Act, and
  2. (b) a member is qualified to exercise the functions referred to if he was appointed to that panel by the Lord Chancellor.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause concerns the procedures used by leasehold valuation tribunals. From the debate on the Bill, the House will be familiar with the role of the tribunals under the existing legislation in dealing with leasehold enfranchisement and under this Bill in dealing with service charge disputes and with the appointment of a manager.

The purpose of the new clause is to allow pre-trial reviews. Mrs. Susan Lloyd, the president of the London Rent Assessment Panel, from which leasehold valuation tribunals are drawn, has suggested that it would be extremely useful if, when dealing with complex cases, a preliminary hearing might be held, under a single member of the tribunal, to clear the ground in advance of the main hearing. She has suggested this in the light of experience in handling cases in disputes over the price to be paid for flats and houses being enfranchised. A pre-trial hearing would allow the parties to indicate to each other, and to the tribunal, the points on which they are agreed and the points on which they disagree, and to indicate broadly the evidence which they will be bringing forward. This will allow each of the parties to be better prepared, and to concentrate on the issues which are in dispute. This should save time and effort both before the main hearing and at the hearing itself. For example, it is not uncommon for parties to ask for an adjournment to prepare a response to unanticipated evidence.

There are often delays in setting up leasehold valuation tribunal hearings. These are primarily caused by the difficulty of finding a date convenient to the parties. A pre-trial review would provide a better opportunity to identify the length and complexity of a case and to negotiate on the spot a firm date for the hearing to begin.

Our informal discussions suggest that both landlords and leaseholders are likely to welcome this provision as a helpful step towards streamlining tribunal procedures—something which will save time and money, as noble Lords appreciate from earlier discussions. I therefore commend the new clause. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, on the face of it, the provision seems sensible. I wish to ask the Minister one question, going back to the charges made for applications to leasehold valuation tribunals. Will he say a little more about the implications of a pre-trial review? He may well say that it will shorten the number of days the tribunal sits and to that extent the daily charge of £2,000 or whatever it is will be reduced. The charge perhaps will not be reduced, but the total sum of the daily charges will be less because there will be fewer hearing days. Will the pre-trial review be a part of the process that has to be paid for? Or will there be some other way in which people can, as it were, have a pre-trial review before they start incurring charges?

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I will correct my statement in a letter if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the Bill constrains us to recover costs as a whole. How we charge for particular elements of the service—for example, a pre-trial review—is to be determined through consultation and discussion after the Bill receives Royal Assent. As yet, I know of no proposals, particularly on such a new element as this, as to how charging should be undertaken.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 164A: After Clause 114, insert the following new clause—