Voice of Landlords Associations (VOLA) has called for an independent review of English councils’ relationships with Justice for Tenants (JFT) after VOLA's analysis of Freedom of Information responses from 249 councils found that more than 100 had accepted free JFT services or credits it values at £396,000.

VOLA says 54% of the councils responding to its FOI exercise had adopted, or expected to adopt, JFT-drafted enforcement or civil penalty policies.

Justice for Tenants has become increasingly influential in housing enforcement, with many councils adopting its model civil penalty and licensing policies and using its training programmes.

The research found 108 councils accepted free services, only one council recorded them as a gift and five councils believed the funding came from central government.

VOLA says it has seen proposed contract terms for one council that, in its interpretation, would require the authority to refer tenants seeking Rent Repayment Order advice exclusively to JFT, which works on a no-win/no-fee basis. It believes this raises serious questions about transparency, procurement, governance and conflicts of interest.

Connection

Although VOLA isn't claiming it has proved wrongdoing, it also sees potential transparency, procurement and conflict of interest issues with the apparent connection between JFT’s Civil Penalty Notice Generator service and debt recovery services offered to councils by another company connected to JFT. It says that following a recent tribunal case in which the judge found aspects of the tenants' conduct, supported by Justice for Tenants, to have been unreasonable and ordered the tenants to pay £3,240 in costs, councils shouldn’t simply assume these arrangements are appropriate.

MHCLG have indicated to VOLA that it is for each council to ensure their own due diligence. “While VOLA agrees with that in principle, the FOI responses from councils also seem to indicate that council controls to trigger a monitoring review of any gifts or hospitality offered are based on tests that date back to 1972 rather than the guidance and legislation of this century,” chair Charlie Baker (pictured) tells LandlordZONE.

Serve

“Local enforcement policy and practices must serve the public interest only and not be designed or operated for commercial gain of partner organisations. The combination of free services, exclusive referral arrangements, policy drafting, provision of CPN enforcement tools and advice whilst having commercial interests in enforcement outcomes creates a level of influence by JFT that demands the independent investigation.”

The group wrote to former Housing Secretary Steve Reed in May, expressing concerns about the influence of JFT on local authority housing enforcement policy and practice.

JFT describes itself as a non-profit organisation that delivers commissioned services to most local authorities, and that its free offer includes policies, training, CPN software and support.

LandlordZONE has asked both MHCLG and Justice for Tenants for a comment. LandlordZONE will update this story if they wish to respond.

‍