Part IV          

Options for Structural Reform

Introduction

                    4.1              We have considered three options for structural reform of the LVH tribunals. These options are at present broadly drawn, and we would be grateful for consultees’ views on them. A list of consultation questions is set out at the end of this Part.

                    4.2              Our three suggested options for reform all broadly follow a single basic model. This is that the LVH tribunals should be organised within a two tier system. Most, if not all, cases should first be heard by a tribunal which is dedicated to first instance hearings. An appeal would then lie from first instance decisions to a single appellate tribunal. 

                    4.3              A theme which is common to all of our three suggested options is therefore that we provisionally propose that there should be a single appeal route from all the LVH tribunals to an appeal tribunal. The differences between the options lie in how the first instance tribunals are structured.

                    4.4              Both option 2 and option 3 envisage a single first instance tribunal. We use the terminology of “amalgamated” and “unified” tribunals to differentiate between two different types of system within this single first instance structure. The “amalgamated” tribunal system retains administrative divisions based to a certain extent on the existing LVH tribunals. The “unified” tribunal does not retain any such division. These two different options are explained further in paragraphs 4.39  – 4.59 of this Part.

                    4.5              Our three options are presented in ascending order of radical reform. They can be summarised as follows.

                    4.6              These three options are outlined in paragraphs 4.19 – 4.59 below. We first consider some general points relating to structural reform.

                    4.7              One possibility is of course to retain the current LVH tribunal system in its entirety, subject to any changes made to the tribunals’ jurisdictional remits as a result of the removal of any unnecessary jurisdictional overlaps with the courts.[1] Some may argue that maintaining the status quo may be the best way forward if the areas of difficulty which we have identified do not in fact cause problems or if reform would create unnecessary practical difficulties. The disadvantage of retaining the current structure is, however, a missed opportunity to reform the LVH tribunals within the context of the wider reform prompted by the Leggatt Review.

                    4.8              A variation on the retention of the current system would be to keep the current system in law, but to move in practice towards a common administration for all the LVH tribunals. This would have the advantage of needing little legislative change. It would, however, also be a missed opportunity for the more extensive reform which is suggested by the Leggatt Review.

                    4.9              The LVH tribunals deal both with disputes between the citizen and the state and those between private parties. In line with the terminology used in the Leggatt Review, we refer to these respectively as “citizen and state” and “party and party” disputes. The Leggatt Review discusses the separation of these two types of dispute. The Review notes that disputes between private parties are qualitatively different from those between citizens and the state. According to the Leggatt Review, party and party disputes are more likely to be adversarial in nature. Tribunal staff will probably be involved with case management to a greater extent in disputes between parties, and different administrative procedures will be needed.[2]

                4.10              The dividing line between the two types of dispute is not always a clear one. For example, the Rent Assessment Committee has jurisdiction to confirm or vary the determination of the rent officer under the Rent Act 1977.[3] As the Rent Assessment Committee is reviewing the decision of a public authority, that is the rent officer, this could be viewed as a citizen and state, or public law, dispute. Alternatively, it could be seen as essentially a private dispute between two parties, in other words the landlord and the tenant, as to the correct amount of fair rent.

                4.11             We have categorised the LVH tribunals as follows.

                                            (2)             Rent Tribunal.[4]

                                            (3)             Rent Assessment Committees.[5]

                                            (4)             Agricultural Land Tribunal.

                                            (5)             The adjudicator to HM Land Registry.[6]

Citizen and state tribunals

                                            (1)             The Commons Commissioners.

                                            (2)             Valuation Tribunal.

Hybrid tribunal

The Lands Tribunal deals with both citizen and state and party and party disputes.  The majority of the tribunal’s jurisdictions are public law matters.[7] A relatively small number of its first instance jurisdictions are properly categorised as party and party disputes. The most important of these is the discharge or modification of restrictive covenants under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which makes up an appreciable amount of the tribunal’s workload. Others with a private law flavour are

                                            (1)             final determination of rateable values under section 37(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 for the purpose of calculating compensation payable by the landlord under that Act,

                                            (2)             apportionment of rentcharges under section 6 of the Rentcharges Act 1977 and

                                            (3)             resolution of disputes relating to rights of way over common land under regulation 10 of the Vehicular Access Across Common and Other Land (England) Regulations 2002.[8]

                4.12              The LVH tribunals deal with both types of disputes without any obvious difficulties. We have therefore not addressed in detail the issue of whether  the two types of dispute should be separated out, for example by creating separate tribunals to deal with each type of dispute. We invite consultees’ views on whether the division between citizen and state and party and party disputes does in fact need to be addressed in this way. If consultees do take the view that this is an important division, we would be grateful for comments on whether consultees agree with our categorisation in paragraph 4.11 above.

                4.13              A point that consultees might want to bear in mind when considering our options is the extent to which each option provides opportunities for the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”). The Leggatt Review states that there may be scope for ADR to be used in the work of the LVH tribunals as “mediation has a proven record of efficacy in cases involving a number of parties with conflicting interests, and that is a common feature of leasehold disputes before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and the county courts.” The Leggatt Review therefore suggests that the Law Commission’s consideration of the LVH tribunals should examine the scope for the use of formal and informal ADR procedures.[9]

                4.14              The Leggatt Review points out the benefits of ADR. The Review states that ADR can be particularly helpful when parties want to maintain good relations following a dispute. It can provide a chance in citizen and state disputes for regulators and applicants to discuss their differences in relation to complex statutory schemes.  ADR provides scope for negotiation rather than resulting in a “win” or “lose” situation, and can reduce the number of contested cases.[10]

                4.15              Consultees may want to consider what types of ADR would be suitable for the resolution of disputes in the LVH tribunals. The Leggatt Review mentions mediation in particular. Mediation involves a neutral third party working with the parties to facilitate their discussions so they can reach a mutually acceptable settlement. The mediator does not make a binding decision.

                4.16              A different type of ADR, arbitration, is already a possible means of dispute resolution for some land and property disputes. Arbitration is a binding method of dispute resolution in which the appointed arbitrator issues an award that is enforceable in the courts. The Lands Tribunal has jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator under section 1(5) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949. We understand that this power is usually used in disputes concerning the value of land under agreements for the sale of land to authorities which have compulsory purchase powers.[11] There is provision in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 for the use of an arbitrator to resolve certain disputes over agricultural holdings.[12] Arbitration is the prescribed means of dispute resolution under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 for most disputes regarding farm business tenancies.[13]

                4.17              We provisionally agree with the Leggatt Review that ADR could be a useful tool for the resolution of land, valuation and housing disputes, in appropriate cases. Consultees may want to consider further opportunities for the use of meditation in particular. Cases that might not be suitable for mediation are those in which the relationship between a landlord and a tenant has become acrimonious and both parties have deeply entrenched positions.

                4.18             We now turn to look in detail at our three suggested options for reform.

                4.19              The first option is to leave the tribunals broadly as they are, but to restructure some discrete elements of the system. We have identified three areas of the current system which would seem to benefit from some restructuring. The changes we have considered are the reorganisation of the appeal routes for the LVH tribunals, the rationalisation of the Lands Tribunal’s jurisdictions and the unification of the RPTS tribunals. These changes are not necessarily all dependent upon each other and each issue can be considered in isolation to some extent. Our provisional view is, however, that this option would work best if each of the areas were reformed together. The implementation of this option would not, as far as we can see, have any impact on the use of ADR in the LVH tribunals.

                4.20              At present appeals from the various LVH tribunals are either to the Lands Tribunal or to the High Court. The Lands Tribunal exercises an appellate jurisdiction over all decisions of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.[14] It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following decisions from the Valuation Tribunal: non-domestic rates,[15] drainage rates[16] and “old rates”. These “old rates” cases are the residual jurisdiction of the old Local Valuation Courts, which was transferred to the Valuation Tribunal by the Valuation and Community Charge (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Regulations 1989.[17]

                4.21             The High Court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Assessment Committees,[18] as well as decisions of the Commons Commissioners[19] and the Agricultural Land Tribunal.[20] It also has appellate jurisdiction over community charge and council tax decisions from the Valuation Tribunals.[21]

                4.22              The Valuation Tribunal additionally has an internal review mechanism which enables it to review decisions on the application of one of the parties to the original appeal. The grounds for this review are clerical error, that the party did not appear at the original hearing but can show reasonable grounds why he did not do so, or that the Valuation Tribunal decision is affected by a decision of the High Court or the Lands Tribunal. This internal review mechanism cannot be used once an appeal has been made to the Lands Tribunal or the High Court.[22]

                4.23             Appeal from the Lands Tribunal is to the Court of Appeal on a point of law.[23]

                4.24              To create a coherent system and one which is readily comprehensible to users, we provisionally take the view that there should be one clearly defined common appeal route from all the LVH tribunals. In line with the proposals of the Leggatt Review,[24] this common appeal route would most rationally be a system of appeals to the Lands Tribunal rather than to the High Court. A change of name may be desirable, for example, “the Land,  Valuation and Housing Appeal Tribunal”[25] or the “Property Appeal Tribunal”. Some training and drafting in of extra expertise may be necessary at the outset to ensure that Lands Tribunal members were able to deal with the added jurisdictions.

                4.25             The Lands Tribunal currently exercises jurisdiction in both first instance and appeal cases. If the Lands Tribunal were to become the appellate body for all the LVH tribunals, it could either retain both these tiers of jurisdiction, or it could become an appellate body only. This is discussed further in paragraphs 4.28 – 4.33 below.

                4.26              Appeals to the High Court are on a point of law only. Appeals to the Lands Tribunal are not confined to questions of law. The recommendation in the Leggatt Review is for a single right of appeal from all tribunals on a point of law only.[26]  We welcome the views of consultees on whether, in our suggested new appeals structure, an appeal to the Lands Tribunal should be a rehearing on the facts, an appeal on a point of law only, or whether the type of appeal should vary depending on the type of hearing that took place at first instance. It seems to us that a key factor is what type of members heard the case at first instance. Cases may be heard by lawyers, by other experts such as valuers or surveyors or by lay members, that is those with no legal or other technical expertise. If a case was originally heard by lay members, there is perhaps more of an argument that an appeal should be a complete rehearing before a panel of experts in the Lands Tribunal. On the other hand, if an appeal is heard as a rehearing on the facts of the case, this may call into question the point of having the first instance hearing at all. Our provisional view is that appeals from decisions of lay tribunals should be heard as a rehearing on the facts whereas appeals from expert tribunals should be appeals on a point of law only.

                4.27              In our suggested appeals system, applicants would be able as now to appeal from the Lands Tribunal to the Court of Appeal and further, subject to the granting of permission. The Leggatt Review states that it would be to users’ benefit to use a reformed comprehensive and systematic appeal system rather than the more limited remedies of judicial review, and that the possibility of judicial review should therefore be excluded. We provisionally agree that judicial review should be excluded for the LVH tribunals in a similar way. [27]

Rationalisation of the Lands Tribunal

                4.28              We have provisionally proposed that there should be a single appeal route from all LVH tribunals and that this should be to the Lands Tribunal.[28] If the Lands Tribunal were to become the single appellate body for all LVH tribunals, this would provide a strong incentive for considering the rationalisation of the tribunals’ jurisdictions. However, even within the current system it is worth considering which types of cases the tribunal should properly deal with.

                4.29             The Lands Tribunal currently has jurisdiction over both appellate and first instance cases. In this section we discuss two types of first instance jurisdiction which could be dealt with by the Lands Tribunal. We use the terms “original” and “transferred” jurisdiction to distinguish these two types of first instance jurisdiction. By original jurisdictions we mean those which statute (or statutory instrument) states are within the jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal to decide at first instance. These include, for example, the Lands Tribunal’s first instance jurisdiction to determine compensation disputes under the Land Compensation Act 1973, compulsory purchase disputes under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and matters relating to the discharge and modification of restrictive covenants under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925.[29] We use “transferred” jurisdiction to denote first instance disputes which are in fact usually within the jurisdiction of other LVH tribunals, but which could be referred to the Lands Tribunal if to do so would be advantageous in terms of expertise or because the Land Tribunal’s procedures would be more appropriate. For example, a case which was within the jurisdiction of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal could be transferred to be heard by the Lands Tribunal at first instance if it was of especially high value or was particularly complex.

                4.30              We are not aware of any statutory procedure which enables the Lands Tribunal to exercise this transferred jurisdiction, but there is a rarely used procedure by which the Lands Tribunal can exercise a type of transferred jurisdiction in relation to the Valuation Tribunal. Instead of bringing a case before the Valuation Tribunal, parties may agree to refer the question to arbitration.[30] Parties also agree to appoint the Lands Tribunal as the arbitrator.[31] This can save parties intending to take a case before the Lands Tribunal the time and cost of a hearing before the Valuation Tribunal.

                4.31              There are therefore three separate potential types of jurisdiction for any reformed Lands Tribunal, that is, the appellate  jurisdiction, the jurisdiction for original first instance cases and the jurisdiction for transferred first instance cases. Our provisional view is that the Lands Tribunal should in the main function as an appellate body and where possible its special expertise should be reserved for only the most complex first instance cases. At the moment, the issue of which first instance cases are heard by the Lands Tribunal is determined by subject matter, that is the original first instance jurisdictions. We ask consultees whether these are in fact complex cases which are suitable for determination by the Lands Tribunal or whether a better system would be for any case to be potentially transferable to the Lands Tribunal if it were of the appropriate complexity on its facts. Our provisional view is that the question of what is a complex case should be decided on the facts of each case rather than being determined by the subject matter of the original first instance jurisdiction.

                4.32              There is a disadvantage to this view. If most of the cases within any particular subject matter are very complex ones, the Lands Tribunal will be the only body which has expertise in this subject matter. This might argue for all cases within that subject area to be considered by the Lands Tribunal, whatever their level of complexity. For example, the Government has agreed with the Compulsory Purchase Policy Review Advisory Group (CPPRAG) that it makes sense to concentrate the determination of all compulsory purchase disputes within a single body with the relevant expertise and experience.[32]

                4.33              If there are some original first instance jurisdictions which should not routinely be considered by the Lands Tribunal, there would have to be an alternative mechanism for dealing with these cases. These could either be dealt with in a new first instance tribunal or by another mechanism. We ask consultees what other dispute resolution mechanisms would be suitable for the original first instance jurisdictions. Our provisional view is that the original first instance jurisdictions should be transferred to a new first instance body.

                4.34              As previously noted,[33] the RPTS tribunals are made up of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Assessment Committee. To a large extent, these three tribunals already function as one unit. The tribunals now have a common legislative basis in Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977.[34] The tribunals all carry out similar work in the field of residential tenancies and share a common administration. In practice the workload of the Rent Tribunals has declined sharply and that of the Rent Assessment Committees is rapidly declining. The three tribunals within the RPTS tribunals could therefore be completely unified. The change would largely seem to be changes in nomenclature, possibly with some additional consequences relating to membership of the tribunal. Complete unification of the tribunals might also present further opportunities for some streamlining of their appeal routes and procedures. These two aspects are discussed below.

                4.35              A unified tribunal should have one common route of appeal. At present, appeals from the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal are to the Lands Tribunal, whereas appeals from the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Assessment Committee are to the High Court.[35] This is not an issue if reform of the RPTS tribunals is tied into the creation of a common appeals route for all LVH tribunals.[36] If the unification of the RPTS tribunals is not tied into the reform of the appellate structure, our provisional view is that a unified RPTS tribunal should have a single route of appeal to the Lands Tribunal.

                4.36              The implementation of a common set of procedures for a unified tribunal would largely be a matter for secondary legislation. The possibility of streamlining the RPTS tribunals’ current procedures is, however, a point to bear in mind when considering the overall viability of this option. The composition of each of the three tribunals is dealt with within the same piece of legislation.[37] Each tribunal has its own set of regulations regarding other procedural matters.[38] The procedures of the tribunals seem on paper to be fairly similar, although the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal has a wider range of case-management type powers.[39] We ask consultees whether any procedural differences are necessary, and whether the unification of the RPTS tribunals would be a useful opportunity to consider whether there could be any further streamlining of the tribunals’ procedures. 

                4.37             The current disparities between the three RPTS tribunals in their charging of fees to users would need to be examined. There would also need to be some  consideration of where the regional offices of the new tribunal should be.

                4.38              The jurisdiction of a single RPTS tribunal would be a combination of the jurisdictions now exercised by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Assessment Committees, subject to any changes made to the tribunals’ jurisdiction as a result of this project.[40]

Option 2: An amalgamated tribunal

                4.39              Option 2 assumes the suggested reforms in option 1 have been accepted, that is, there is a single appeal route to the Lands Tribunal, the Lands Tribunal’s jurisdictions have been rationalised and that the RPTS tribunals have been unified.

                4.40              This option involves a more comprehensive remodelling of the overall structure of the LVH tribunals. It entails the amalgamation of the jurisdictions of the first instance LVH tribunals, with a single appeals body. This option is a “half way house” between option 1, the rationalisation of the current system,  and option 3, the fully unified tribunal.

                4.41              Broadly speaking,  the jurisdictions currently exercised by the first instance LVH tribunals would all be transferred in law to one new large tribunal called, for example, “the Land, Valuation and Housing Tribunal”.[41] This tribunal would have regional offices. The tribunal would have a single administrative service to deal with all the administration relating to cases within its jurisdiction, called perhaps “the Land, Valuation and Housing Tribunal Service”. There would be one President in charge of the amalgamated tribunal and another President for the appeals tribunal.

                4.42              In an amalgamated tribunal, users would submit their application through the single administrative service. The President would then determine how cases were to be allocated within the tribunal, including which members should hear the case and which procedures would be used. In practice, this function would probably be delegated either to a newly created registrar or would be dealt with by the administrative service.

                4.43             This system of Presidential allocation of cases would result in the present LVH tribunals continuing to exist to a certain extent in fact if not in law, under the umbrella structure of the single amalgamated tribunal. The precise level of integration of the currently existing tribunals within the new body is determined by the way in which cases are allocated.

                4.44              At one end of the spectrum one could opt for a “hard-edged” jurisdictional approach and at the other end one could opt for a “soft-edged” discretionary approach. In a hard-edged jurisdictional system, the operation of the existing LVH tribunals would largely  remain the same. The tribunals would not exist in name, but administrative divisions based on them could be established and cases could be allocated accordingly. For instance, when a dispute previously dealt with by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal was submitted through the administrative service, it would be allocated to a tribunal member who previously worked as a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal member and would be determined to a large extent by current Leasehold Valuation Tribunal procedures. The main changes that would result from the hard-edged option would be administrative, that is, there would be a centralisation of administrative functions and a pooling of administrative resources which could be beneficial. The actual determination of disputes would largely remain the same, though there would be room for some rationalisation of procedures and fee structures.

                4.45              The “soft-edged” system is similar, but would involve a greater degree of internal reorganisation and would be more flexible. Again the existing tribunals would not exist in name. The administrative divisions established within the amalgamated structure would reflect to some extent the jurisdiction of the existing tribunals, but would also take into account other factors. Cases would be allocated taking into account a wide range of factors in addition to the jurisdictions of the currently existing tribunals. Relevant factors could include, for example, the complexity of the case, the type of expertise that was most appropriate and the monetary value involved. These factors would allow more flexibility in which procedures were used, including the degree of case management applied. To take our earlier example, when a dispute formerly dealt with by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal was submitted, the current Leasehold Valuation Tribunal procedures would not necessarily be used. If, for example, the case were a complex one involving large sums of money, it might be allocated to a procedural route requiring a large degree of case management.

                4.46              Different “streams” could be developed for different sorts of cases. The top stream, for example, might comprise cases where a high level of legal or technical expertise was needed together with a large degree of case management. The bottom stream might suit cases which needed a lower level of expertise and case management or for which ADR might be suitable. A hierarchy of streams would operate in between these, and cases could be streamed into whichever was most appropriate, taking into account the precise facts of the case as well as the jurisdictional issues involved. Even if not explicit in the system of allocation of cases, this hierarchy of streams would probably develop in practice within this sort of model.

                4.47             This could work similarly to the way in which cases can be streamed under existing Lands Tribunal procedures. When cases come into the Lands Tribunal, they are allocated to one of four procedural streams. The first is the special procedure, used for cases which require a large degree of case management by a tribunal member because of their complexity. The second is the standard procedure in which case management is in the hands of the registrar and in which there is usually a lesser degree of case management. The third is the simplified procedure which aims to provide for the speedy and economical determination of cases in which no substantial issue of law or valuation practice, or substantial conflict of fact, is likely to arise, and which is often used where the amount at stake is small. It is a procedure in which costs are not awarded. The fourth is a written representations procedure which is used when, having regard to the issues in the case and the desirability of minimising costs, the tribunal is of the view that oral evidence and argument can properly be dispensed with.[42]

                4.48              As well as being allocated to one of the procedural streams, consideration would have to be given to which tribunal member should hear each case. Different personnel would be allocated, or “ticketed” to different types of case. In the “hard-edged” variant, the appropriate personnel would be decided upon on a jurisdictional basis. For example, a case that would now by heard by a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal member would be allocated to a member who used to sit in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. In the “soft-edged” variant, there would be more flexibility and other factors could be taken into account. A case that would now be heard by a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal member would not necessarily be heard by a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in the amalgamated tribunal if the complexity of the case, for example, meant it was more appropriate for it to be heard by a former Lands Tribunal member. 

                4.49              At this stage we believe that the “hard-edged” variant would result in largely superficial changes, whereas the “soft-edged” variant offers a more promising avenue for meaningful reform in the spirit of the Leggatt Review. We therefore provisionally recommend that it be preferred over the “hard-edged” variant and outline the features of option 2 on this basis. We do, however, invite consultees’ views on both variants.

                4.50              One issue that is relevant to both variants is the regional structure of the amalgamated tribunal. At present the LVH tribunals’ regional division vary. It seems that as a single regional structure will have to be chosen for the amalgamated tribunal, one or more of the existing regional structures will inevitably therefore have to be replaced. We invite consultees to consider the most appropriate regional structure for an amalgamated LVH tribunal.

                4.51             The following are the principal features of this option (assuming the soft-edged variant referred to above).

                4.52              This option is more flexible than option 1. In the soft-edged variant at least, cases could be dealt with in the most effective way without the restriction of jurisdictional issues as between the different individual tribunals. As the jurisdictions of the individual LVH tribunals have grown up in an ad hoc fashion, it may be that some jurisdictions would in fact be more appropriately be dealt with in a different tribunal to that which has jurisdiction for a particular matter.[43] This option also allows a large degree of flexibility in terms of procedure and case management. The specialist expertise of the tribunal members is retained as members would usually hear cases within their current areas of expertise. This option leaves open the possibility for future development towards a unified tribunal, as described in option 3, without undertaking such a radical move at this stage.

Option 3: A Unified Tribunal

                4.53              Option 3 also assumes that the suggested reforms in option 1 have been accepted, that is, there is a single appeal route to the Lands Tribunal, the Lands Tribunal’s jurisdictions have been rationalised and that the RPTS tribunals have been unified.

                4.54              This option, which entails the creation of a unified LVH tribunal system, is the most radical reform option. The basic structure is similar to that of the amalgamated tribunal discussed in option 2. There would be a single first instance LVH tribunal, a single appeals body and a single administrative body. The unified first instance tribunal could be known as the “Land, Valuation and Housing Tribunal”, and would have regional offices. There would be one President at the head of the unified tribunal and another President for the appeals tribunal.

                4.55              The difference between the two options is that in option 3, there would be no procedural divisions within the first instance tribunal and no divisions relating to tribunal composition. Whereas in option 2 the current procedural rules of the LVH tribunals would remain at least to some extent, in a fully unified tribunal there would be a single set of procedures. The precise nature of these procedural rules would be a matter for secondary legislation, but consultees may want to consider the extent to which a single procedural code would be possible. Within the single set of procedures, there would of course be room for variations in the exact procedures used in different cases, and for different degrees of case management where necessary, as already happens in courts and tribunals. 

                4.56              Under a fully unified tribunal system each sitting of the tribunal would have jurisdiction to hear any land, valuation or housing dispute for which the unified tribunal had jurisdiction. However, in practice, at least at first, a “ticketing” system would be put into place whereby members would be designated to hear those cases which were within their areas of expertise. In this way, the unified tribunal would make use of the existing expertise of the current members of the LVH tribunals. Tribunal members would also be able to gain more extensive expertise by sitting in different types of cases. There would probably be more ticketing of this sort in the early stages of the unified tribunal’s development. As tribunal members would gain expertise in a wider range of land, valuation and housing matters over the course of time, there could be some movement towards members being able to hear all types of cases within the unified tribunal’s jurisdiction.

                4.57              In the same way as in the amalgamated tribunal, consideration would have to be given to the regional structure of the unified tribunal and to how fee structures might be rationalised.

                4.58             The following are the principal features of this option:

                4.59              The advantage of this option is that in time it would offer a simple one-stop shop for users for all LVH tribunal disputes. This model would greatly simplify matters for users and could lead to the speedier and more efficient resolution of disputes, especially if eventually all tribunal members could hear all land, valuation and housing disputes. This would also allow for much greater flexibility in the use of judicial expertise. A fully unified tribunal could also produce efficiency savings. A unified tribunal has the advantage of complete flexibility, as well as the potential for new jurisdictions to be easily added where this would be in the interests of a coherent system of administrative justice.

                4.60              We have set out three possible options for structural reform of the LVH tribunals. Our provisional preference is for option 3, the unified tribunal. Option 1 may leave the problem of user confusion over where to start a case unsolved and would merely modify the current system where a more radical overhaul might be more beneficial. Options 2  and 3 both envisage a single first instance tribunal. While options 2 and 3 are conceptually different, in practice they may only differ in the way in which the new single tribunal would operate. It may be better therefore to opt for a unified tribunal system and recognise that the way in which cases would be allocated to different members and to different procedures should depend partly on the tribunal’s rules and partly on practical matters of management and administration.

                4.61              We welcome the views of consultees on any of the matters raised in this consultation paper or any other suggestions consultees may have. In particular we invite comments on the following consultation questions.

                4.62              We have set out three possible options for reform. Which of these options do consultees think is most workable in practice? Why?

                4.63             What practical problems have consultees noted with any of the options?

                4.64              What would be the financial impact of these options?

                4.65              Is the division between party and party disputes and citizen and state disputes an important one in the work of the LVH tribunals? Would it be beneficial in any reformed tribunal system to separate out these two types of dispute? If so, do consultees agree with our categorisation of the LVH tribunals? (See paragraphs 4.9 – 4.12).

                4.66              What scope do consultees see for the use of ADR in the work of the LVH tribunals? (See paragraphs 4.13 – 4.17).

                4.67              Within option 1, we have suggested three changes to the current system: a common appeals route, the rationalisation of the Lands Tribunal and the unification of the RPTS tribunals. Do consultees see a need in practice for the these changes? (See paragraphs 4.19 – 4.38).

                4.68              Do consultees think there should be a single route of appeal from the LVH tribunals? If so, should this be a single route of appeal to the Lands Tribunal? What would be an appropriate name for this tribunal? See paragraphs  4.20 – 4.27).

                4.69              What factors should influence whether an appeal should be a rehearing on the facts or an appeal on a point of law only? Which of these should be the basis for appeals in the context of our suggested single appeal route to the Lands Tribunal? (See paragraph 4.26).

                4.70              Do consultees think that the possibility of judicial review should be excluded? (See paragraph 4.27).

                4.71              Do consultees agree that the Lands Tribunal should in the main function as an appellate body and where possible its special expertise should be reserved for only the most complex first instance cases? (See paragraph 4.31).

                4.72              Do consultees think that the original Lands Tribunal first instance jurisdictions are in fact complex cases which are suitable for determination by the Lands Tribunal, or would a better system be for any case to be potentially transferable to the Lands Tribunal if the case were of appropriate complexity on its facts? (See paragraph 4.31)

                4.73              What other dispute resolution mechanisms do consultees think would be suitable for the original first instance jurisdictions if they were moved from an appellate Lands Tribunal? (See paragraph 4.33)

                4.74              Do consultees see any advantages in the complete unification of the RPTS tribunals? (See paragraphs 4.34 –4.38).

                4.75              Do consultees agree that a unified RPTS tribunal should have a single route of appeal and, if so, should this be an appeal to the Lands Tribunal? (See paragraph 4.35).

                4.76              Would a unification of the RPTS tribunals provide an opportunity to consider streamlining of the tribunals’ procedures? (See paragraph 4.36).

                4.77              In paragraph 4.51, we summarise our model for an amalgamated tribunal. Do consultees think this is workable in practice? Please give reasons as far as possible.

                4.78              In paragraphs 4.44 – 4.49 we discuss “hard-edged” and “soft-edged” variants within this option. Do consultees agree that the “soft-edged” variant is the more promising route for reform?

                4.79              What do consultees think would be the most appropriate regional structure for an amalgamated LVH tribunal? (See paragraph 4.50).

                4.80              In paragraph 4.58 we summarise our model of a unified tribunal. Do consultees think this is workable in practice? Please give reasons as far as possible.

                4.81              A unified tribunal would have a single procedural code. Do consultees see a single procedural code as a possibility? (See paragraph 4.55).

                4.82              What do consultees think would be the most appropriate regional structure for a unified LVH tribunal? (See paragraph 4.57).