Court Decisions on Housing Disrepair Claims & Landlords’ Internal Complaints Procedures
Key Themes
- Allocation of Housing Disrepair Claims: Whether cases should be heard in the small claims track (limited costs) or fast track (recoverable costs).
- Use of Internal Complaints Procedures (ICPs): Whether landlords can divert claims into ICPs to avoid litigation.
Case 1: Stojalowski v Bristol City Council (Bristol County Court, 2024)
Key Issue
Should the tenant’s disrepair claim be allocated to the fast track (allowing legal costs) or small claims track (limiting costs)?
Court’s Decision
- Fast track allocation: The claim met the criteria because:
- The cost of repairs exceeded £1,000 (market rate, not the council’s in-house cost).
- Specific performance was a legitimate remedy sought.
- Expert evidence might be needed.
- Rejected the council’s arguments:
- Financial pressures on the council were irrelevant to allocation (a matter for Parliament, not courts).
- The council’s ICP had already been used (via a prior stay), so it could not justify further delays.
Impact
- Strengthened tenants’ ability to bring claims in the fast track, ensuring access to legal representation.
- Clarified that specific performance claims and market-rate repair costs determine allocation.
Case 2: Cawley v Abri Group Limited (Yeovil County Court, 2024)
Key Issue
Should the court stay litigation to let the landlord’s ICP resolve the dispute?
Court’s Decision
- Refused the stay: Abri’s ICP was not a fair or suitable alternative because:
- Abri unilaterally diverted the pre-action Letter of Claim into its ICP, ignoring the Housing Disrepair Protocol.
- The ICP excluded the tenant’s solicitors and produced a flawed Stage 1 decision.
- No evidence the ICP was transparent or effective (Abri failed to provide its policy).
- Criticised Abri’s conduct:
- The ICP was used tactically to avoid legal costs, not as genuine dispute resolution.
- The tenants had no choice but to litigate after Abri’s failure to engage properly.
Impact
- Landlords cannot force tenants into ICPs after a claim is threatened.
- Courts will scrutinise whether ICPs are used in good faith or to frustrate claims.
Common Findings & Wider Implications
- Courts Prioritise Fairness Over Landlord Convenience
- Financial pressures on landlords (e.g., Bristol’s budget constraints, Abri’s cost concerns) do not justify denying tenants access to justice.
- Pre-Action Protocols must be followed—landlords cannot bypass them with internal processes.
- Specific Performance Claims Are Valid
- Courts may order landlords to complete repairs, even if they claim to be “trying their best” (Stojalowski).
- Tenants can seek both damages and enforcement of repairs (Cawley).
- Internal Complaints Procedures Must Be Transparent & Timely
- ICPs are not a substitute for litigation if used unfairly or too late (Cawley).
- Landlords should engage with ICPs early, not after a legal claim is imminent.
- Costs Consequences
- Fast track allocation (Stojalowski) and refusal of stays (Cawley) ensure tenants are not deterred by unaffordable legal risks.
- Landlords who misuse procedures may face adverse costs orders (e.g., Abri had to pay £5,750).
Key Quotes
- “If claims should not be subject to the fast track costs regime, that is a matter for Parliament” (Stojalowski).
- “Abri’s unilateral decision to treat the Letter of Claim as a complaint operated to its advantage and the claimants’ detriment” (Cawley).
Conclusion
These rulings clarify that:
- Tenants can pursue disrepair claims robustly, with access to legal representation where justified.
- Landlords must engage fairly—using ICPs early and transparently, not as a litigation tactic.
- Courts will intervene where procedural unfairness risks denying justice.
For landlords: Proactive repairs and genuine ADR are safer than resisting valid claims.
For tenants: Pre-action compliance strengthens your position if litigation becomes necessary.
Procedural Roadmap for Tenants & Landlords in Housing Disrepair Claims
(Based on Recent Case Law & Best Practices)
For Tenants: Key Steps to Enforce Repairs
- Document the Disrepair
- Keep dated records (photos, videos, emails/texts to landlord).
- Note health impacts (e.g., mould-related illnesses).
- Formal Notification
- Send a Letter of Claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Disrepair:
- Detail defects + evidence (e.g., surveyor reports).
- Propose solutions (e.g., single joint expert).
- Allow 20 working days for a response.
- If Landlord Fails to Act:
- Issue proceedings: Specify remedies (damages + specific performance).
- Allocation: Argue for fast track if:
- Repairs exceed £1,000 (market cost).
- Expert evidence is needed (Stojalowski).
- Counter Landlord Tactics
- If the landlord diverts to an ICP:
- Insist on solicitor involvement (Cawley).
- Challenge delays/unfairness (request court intervention).
For Landlords: Avoiding Costly Disputes
- Preventative Measures
- Conduct regular property inspections.
- Respond promptly to tenant reports (document actions).
- Upon Receiving a Claim
- Follow the Protocol:
- Respond within 20 days with:
- Repair schedule + deadlines.
- Disclosure of relevant records.
- Engage constructively (e.g., agree joint expert).
- Using ICPs Correctly
- Early engagement: Invoke ICP at first complaint, not after legal threats.
- Ensure transparency:
- Share ICP policy with tenants.
- Allow solicitor participation (Cawley).
- If Litigation Is Inevitable
- Small claims track: Argue only if:
- Repairs under £1,000 (using contractor quotes).
- No complex issues (e.g., structural defects).
- Avoid summary judgment bids unless liability is clearly disputed.
Strategic Insights from Recent Cases
| Scenario | Do This | Avoid This |
|---|---|---|
| Tenant claims damp/mould | Offer inspection + realistic timeline | Ignoring Protocol deadlines |
| Landlord invokes ICP | Include tenant’s solicitor | Unilateral decisions (Cawley) |
| Fast track vs. small claims | Use market-rate repair estimates | Relying on in-house costs (Stojalowski) |
When Courts Will Intervene
- Tenants: If landlords delay repairs or misuse ICPs.
- Landlords: If tenants unreasonably refuse mediation or exaggerate claims.
Key Precedent:
- Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [2023]: Courts can order ADR (e.g., ICPs), but only if fair and timely.
Is the Court more likely to order a stay for mediation?
in my view the Court is more likely to order a stay for mediation to take place.
Need Further Guidance?
- Tenants: Contact Shelter or a housing solicitor.
- Landlords: Consult the Local Government Association for compliance tools.
This roadmap balances tenant protections with landlord pragmatism, aligned with recent judgments.