Letters roundup: 22 March 2024

Reality of Liverpool homelessness

We write in response to the letter published on 23 February from Liverpool councillors Sarah Doyle and Liam Robinson, which was written as a response to the Gazette feature of 9 February. The latter, ‘Left in the Lurch in Liverpool’, was a report on the homeless and housing crisis in Liverpool and its impact on those working in housing legal aid. The article featured extensive interviews with members of the team at Vauxhall Law Centre and specifically with the housing solicitors.

The councillors write that they wish to correct inaccurate information. We feel it is therefore important that we respond.

Vauxhall Law Centre is and always has been committed to relieving poverty and homelessness through providing access to expert legal advice and representation on behalf of clients who face injustice. Our housing team works collaboratively and has spent many hours engaging with, lobbying and reaching out to the relevant teams and individuals within the city council, specifically those working on housing-related matters. We are regularly consulted by various colleagues within the council on the development of strategies or during reviews of teams and processes. Following pressure from us for a more collaborative approach, we have had numerous meetings with, for example, the director of housing, and managers within the homeless team and private rented sector departments.

In addition, we work regularly with our local MPs and councillors providing insight on matters such as housing, welfare benefits and legal aid. We have a longstanding working relationship with councillor Doyle, having regularly discussed potential reforms and ways to improve services, as well as working together on multiple individual cases involving her constituents.

In response to the specific matters they chose to highlight, we can categorically confirm that on 9 February there had been no way for homeless individuals in Liverpool to either present as homeless in person, or access face-to-face assessments from the council’s housing options team since the initial Covid-19 lockdown in March 2020.

This was also confirmed by the council’s own website from the date the original article was published. We do, however, note that at some point between 9 and 23 February, their policy appears to have changed. The website now states that homeless individuals can present as homeless over the telephone or using an online form, and can then request that they attend a face-to-face assessment.

We welcome this change by Liverpool City Council and look forward to hearing from our clients who have been able to access this service face to face. We will continue to campaign for the reintroduction of further accessible spaces across the city in which homeless individuals can present as homeless in person, as was the case before March 2020.

The councillors write to say that it is incorrect to say that emergency rough sleeper support can only be accessed over the phone or online. Our experience is that those people who do not manage to receive a response from housing options during office hours must then contact the outreach team, which is accessible only via telephone and online under the ‘always help available’ scheme, to provide their location, and must then ‘bed down’ in that location to wait for someone to attend and assess them. Only then may they gain access to support or accommodation.

If that position has now changed or the street-based assertive outreach team’s operational hours have expanded to 24/7, we welcome this. We ask that the website be updated to reflect the new system, and that this is communicated to all relevant stakeholders to ensure we can properly inform and advise our clients.

We welcome the recruitment of 18 new staff and look forward to seeing the impact on the service provided and the serious delays in assessment and decisions.

We will continue to work with Liverpool City Council to try to ensure our communities receive the services to which they are entitled. As a law centre, we will also continue to submit detailed complaints and take legal action where appropriate in order to meet the situation as we find it on the ground today, in order to obtain the best outcomes for our individual clients.

Ngaryan Li (CEO) and Siobhan Taylor-Ward (housing solicitor), Vauxhall Law Centre, Liverpool

Employer justice

I was disappointed by the article on tribunal fees by Shantha David of Unison (16 February). I suppose it is inevitable that such an author will attempt to argue their case, but I would have expected more balance. The issue over whether the fees contemplated would make any meaningful difference and whether it was worth recruiting staff to collect them was a good one, but the comparison of the expected income against all of the costs was misleading.

The real question is whether the costs of collection outweigh the income generated. I suspect this was not addressed because the evidence would not have supported the argument. More importantly, the key issue is access to justice. It cannot be beyond Unison’s understanding that access to justice for employees is, practically in some cases, denial of justice for employers. The idea that any fee, at any level, is a denial of access to justice in general terms is therefore just plain wrong. Yes, the requirement to pay a small fee will deter certain claimants. However, the argument cannot be countered that, at the right level and with the right safeguards in place, some claimants should be deterred to provide reasonable justice to defendants against claims which should never be brought. I know there are also safeguards against those claims, but anyone who thinks that, without any fees, the system provides a level playing field is out of touch. Not all employers are huge corporations. I represent small businesses forced to settle highly questionable claims because, irrespective of the merits, it is far cheaper to settle than to fight. Those employers deserve justice too.

Alex May

Partner, BladeLaw, Gloucester

‘You told me’ warning

Like Mother in Law (23 February), when clients are in a quandary I give them all the available options to consider and also the pros and cons of each. But when they ask what I would do in the same circumstances (as they often do), I make it a matter of policy not to actually make the decision for them (as Mother in Law would apparently do). I have advised them on all the legal and other implications of each course of action, and also guided them with the benefit of my experience in that situation. But if I actually tell them what to do and I get it wrong, then I lay myself open to a ‘you told me to do this’ claim.

Barry Borman

Edgware