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

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll