Residential Property Tribunal Service Mediation Pilot
Gareth Spicer of the London Rent Assessment Panel discusses the recently completed successful mediation pilot conducted by the Residential Property Tribunal Service.
Finding alternative ways of resolving disputes has moved up the Government’s agenda over recent years as they encourage Tribunals to develop new ways of handling cases brought to them.
The London Panel of the Residential Property Tribunal Service (RPTS) has recently completed a successful pilot introducing a mediation option into the procedure for some of its jurisdictions.
This was the second pilot that RPTS had attempted. The first, in 2004, introduced mediation for a small number of jurisdictions under the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLARA). This proved less than successful with little interest being shown by the parties. Analysis showed that the adopted procedure had lacked sufficient training for the administrative staff and insufficient information had been made available to the parties on the role mediation could play in the Tribunal’s application process
RPTS took stock and maintained the belief that a structure that included mediation as an option for parties would prove popular. The idea was redeveloped with a view to a second pilot introduced in October 2005. More jurisdictions within CLARA were included to cover applications on service charges, breaches of covenant, appointment of manager and appointment charges.
New Pilot
This new pilot saw a more proactive approach to advertising the pilot with information being sent to all parties involved in relevant applications and Tribunals highlighting mediation during the early stages of the application process. If both parties agreed to attempt mediation, the application process would be temporarily stopped while they sought settlement with a trained mediator from the Tribunal. However parties would be advised of a prospective Tribunal hearing date should mediation prove unsuccessful.
Mediators were drawn from the existing Tribunal members who had already received appropriate training. Additional members volunteered to join and undertook similar training themselves before being used as mediators. The mediator would take the case forward during the entire mediation process and formulate any agreement into a draft record for the parties to sign.
A greater emphasis was also placed on the training of administrative staff to ensure they were fully included in the pilot and its development. Initially a small number of case officers received training from an external provider on the benefits and methods of mediation. These case officers would then take forward any applications where mediation had been requested.
A meeting would be arranged at our offices for the parties to attend with the mediator where all the issues would be discussed in turn allowing all concerned the opportunity to put their view across.
If mediation proved successful, parties would be given a written agreement to sign and invited to withdraw the existing application to the Tribunal following resolution of their disputes. If unsuccessful the mediator would refer the file back to the case officer and the application procedure would pick up where it had left off. Any members of the Tribunal who had been involved during mediation would not handle the case again.
The pilot concluded in November 2007. During this time 80 applications had been through the mediation process with 57% proving successful and resulting in the application being withdrawn. 12% of cases saw parties withdraw from mediation before a meeting took place. The data obtained does not show any trend in why this has happened and could be for any number of reasons from parties deciding to opt for a full Tribunal hearing to settlement being reached outside of RPTS’ remit.
Conclusions
For the parties, there is a significant saving of time in finding a solution that is equitable for all concerned. There is an additional financial saving for parties as it prevents the requirement to prepare extensive papers or instruct solicitors and experts for what can often prove lengthy hearings. Fees for Tribunal hearings are also not required bringing a further saving for the applicant.
RPTS have also seen benefits. In the London office a one day hearing will result in a cost of approx £1000 in members fees. Although financial savings are difficulty to quantify exactly, the success of the pilot has resulted in a saving of approximately £30,000 in fees. The savings could be higher as we cannot gauge how many days a hearing may have lasted. There are potentially additional savings for Tribunals who do not have central hearing rooms by no longer needing to hire venues for their hearings.
Furthermore our case officers are benefiting from the additional training and experience they have gained to the extent that nearly half of the case workers in our office have now undertaken the training.
It has been a challenge to overcome scepticism from some users of the Tribunal who do not regard mediation as a useful tool for what can often be very old disputes. Additionally, parties often attempt to use mediation when it is clear neither party is willing to compromise.
To assist with this we have developed a partnership with a local legal college who provide law student volunteers to talk through the process with parties considering using the mediation service. This has proved beneficial in ensuring appropriate cases are referred to our mediators.
The pilot has been a little longer than originally anticipated as we sought to ensure a sufficient number of cases had been through the mediation procedure. However, the Panel President, Siobhan McGrath, has been greatly encouraged as the office looks at ways of rolling the mediation option across more of its jurisdictions and other regions during 2008. It is therefore appropriate to leave her to make the final comment:
“Our pilot has demonstrated that mediation can provide not only an alternative, but in some cases a better way of resolving disputes”.