header-logo header-logo

Housing disrepair claims could learn lesson from whiplash reforms

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll