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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll