Rent arrears management practices in the housing association sector

when using discretionary grounds for possession,
was whether it was worth bringing possession
proceedings where the likely outcome was that
the occupier would be required to pay a minimal
amount towards the arrears . This was an issue,
which would be discussed with a new LSVT
management team . Other participants also noted
that, in addition to the costs of possession actions,
it was always better for an association to sustain
a tenancy because they would be more likely to
recover any arrears where the occupier remained in
the accommodation .
The lawyer interviewees all commented on the
impact of the changes outlined above, in particular
the PAP, as well as on the use of Ground 8 on
the court process and outcomes (see below) . In
relation to the PAP, one suggested that it should
have led to more outright possession orders,
because judges should, where it is complied with,
recognise that associations have taken all the
necessary steps to give the tenant a chance to
46
pay . In practice, however, this was not the case,
since the judges’ still continued their practices
(and variations in those practices) much as before .
Another noted that in one court association
representatives were asked to produce a checklist
to demonstrate compliance with the PAP, while
other courts required no such explicit demonstration
of compliance . None of these interviewees had
direct experience of judges imposing penalties on
associations for failure to comply with the PAP,
although two understood that some judges would
adjourn in the event of non-compliance .