Ng, P (2011) The use of mediation in preventing homelessness in England. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 3(2), pp. 146-158. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the appropriateness of mediation as a homelessness prevention tool for statutorily homeless people who are in need of emergency housing assistance from local authorities in England. It is argued that although mediation is potentially an effective method for facilitating communication as a homelessness prevention tool, caution needs to be exercised in its use in attempting to prevent immediate homelessness. Design/methodology/approach – In-depth interviews were carried out with five housing law practitioners and six mediators. The paper also draws on observations made by commentators on homelessness legislation as well as ADR. Government papers, including guidance and policy papers and statutes, have been examined. Findings – Mediation could potentially offer effective assistance to homeless people, although it is questionable whether immediate homelessness could genuinely be prevented. In addition, in order to prevent potentially unlawful decisions being made, local authority officers need to take into account their reactive duties under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002. Research limitations/implications – Findings from the research address homelessness mediation, an area that requires discussion. More research is needed on the benefits of mediation to homeless people. Originality/value – The paper contributes to discussions between a range of academics and practitioners interested in the potential benefits of mediation in the context of homelessness work.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | England; homelessness; homelessness mediation; housing need |
| Index terms: | prevention, housing law, mediator, England, duty, housing, methodology, statute, practitioner, housing need, local authority, interview, legislation, mediation |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, contractual role, construction type, practitioner, dispute resolution, legal systems, research methods, Geography, financial risk, housing and residential development, sociology, housing law |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Urban Studies, Legal Issues, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here