header-logo header-logo

10 December 2025
Issue: 8143 / Categories: Legal News , Housing , Consumer , Landlord&tenant , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Housing disrepair claims could learn lesson from whiplash reforms

All housing disrepair claims could be transferred from the county court to the small claims court, and referral fees banned, under reforms being considered by ministers

A government call for evidence, ‘Housing disrepair claims’, issued last week, asks whether ‘lessons from the approach taken to personal injury claims’ could be applied to housing disrepair. Banning referral fees, for example, would enable claimants to choose the most appropriate solicitor rather than the ‘highest bidder’.

Reforming ‘no win no fee’ arrangements, introducing rules to deter exaggerated or fraudulent claims, and raising the threshold for the small claims track (where both sides pay their own costs) could also be borrowed from the personal injury reforms. Currently, the small claims threshold is £1,000 for housing disrepair. It was raised to £5,000 for whiplash claims in 2018.

The joint Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government paper notes the low threshold can ‘encourage unmeritorious claims’ as the defendant will often settle rather than risk having to pay the other side’s costs as well as the repair if they lose.

It also warns of bad practice in law firms, stating: ‘We have heard reports of [claims management companies] and solicitors targeting tenants... encouraging claims when it may not be in the tenant’s best interest, failing to warn tenants of risks involved, and offering counterproductive advice—for example encouraging a tenant not to let landlords in to carry out inspections or fix issues.

‘This can result in tenants having to live with disrepair for longer and discourage them from accessing more effective redress routes.’

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has previously raised concerns about some solicitors operating in the housing disrepair sector, in its August paper, ‘High-volume consumer claims thematic review’. It found evidence some firms were not adequately informing clients about potential costs, risks and alternative options.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll