#NKLC50 THREAD: The funny thing about me being a #housing paralegal in a law centre going up against local authorities is that my father has spent his entire career as a housing officer for various councils. What a rebel son I am.

Here are some examples of what I do:

I had a client with a rare condition where his veins were unable to pump blood from his legs to his heart. This meant he was unable to climb the 4 flights of stairs into his apartment. He often stayed at friends houses but when forced, he would drag himself up by his arms.

He applied to the council for rehousing. The council rejected that he had an urgent medical need for rehousing, saying that since he was able to drag himself up the 4 flights with his arms, he was not 'unable to manage' the stairs. He came to the law centre for help.

I wrote a pre-action letter, arguing that the decision was unlawful since it breached the council's public sector equality duty. He had a disability and so was protected by the Equality Act. The council had a duty to remove obstacles that he faced because of his disability.

The following day, they wrote to us saying that the decision had been quashed in our client's favour.

The crazy thing about this case was that if legal action hadn't been threatened, the council would have left him to crawl up 60 steps to get into his home.

In another case, I had requested a medical assessment for a client living in unsuitable accommodation. After 3 months of constantly chasing the housing association for a response, I threatened to take legal action if no decision was made.

They immediately replied saying a decision - negative - had been 3 months before, but failed to explain the delay. I asked if all evidence had been taken into account, particularly a fresh report I'd procured for the review. It hadn't.

The next day I received an email: the matter had been reconsidered in my clients favour.

What would a lay client do, especially one with medical conditions, when faced with such an oppressive landlord?

This matter was outside of scope for legal aid. We did it all pro bono.

These cases I think demonstrate the often inhuman way some of the most vulnerable people are treated in one of the world's richest cities.

Further, they raise certain questions about #accesstojustice and the extent to which we are all equal under the law.

1: The Equality Act was passed so that people with protected characteristics would not suffer disadvantages because of them. Yet scarcity of resources means that, without litigation, many people are still suffering disadvantages, particularly because of disability.

2: Under LASPO, the legal help scheme for housing only pays £157 per case, even if fees earned = £300 or £400. We did a few sums one month and calculated that we were losing around £2,000 a month - or £24,000 a year. And that's just for the matters in scope!

3. Very often we are faced with clients whose problems are not in scope for legal aid. This requires us to make a difficult decision: do we do pro bono or refer them somewhere else? We'd love to take on every case, but look at @LambethLawCentr - went into administration last year

The reality is that it is a miracle law centres are still operating. It really is testament to the will and dedication of people who, for very little pay, dedicate themselves to providing access to justice to the increasing number who cannot afford to pay for it.

This week we are celebrating the achievements of the pioneers who set up a law centre in an old butcher's shop in 1970s London.

But we are also celebrating the fact that we are still here making a positive difference in the community and in people's lives.

#NKLC50

I want this to mark the start of a new age of law centres. I hope the awareness raised by the anniversary will encourage a greater respect for the importance of LCs and Legal Aid in making society better for all, not just those who use them. Thanks. S.
#NKLC50