As we head into some time off (and a chance to rest my RSI) I bring you a couple of tidings, not necessarily of comfort and joy, of things for the new year. And a bit of a gift for Christmas. After Christmas, I’ll see about some of the backlog of reports.

In the meantime, my first ‘Awaab’s Law’ interim injunction application on an emergency hazard eventually went very well, once we managed to get a hearing date. I think section 10A and the regulations could be of real benefit for social tenants and their households facing urgent and dire conditions, because an interim injunction for performance of the duties under the regulations has clear force, given the statutory timescales, and all that is being asked for is compliance.

On to the tidings.

MHCLG/MoJ have issued an Open Call for Evidence – Housing Disrepair Claims

They say

This call for evidence seeks views on cases where tenants in England consider seeking redress through the County Court by bringing a claim against their landlord for housing disrepair, and the role of claims management activity in this process.

Everyone deserves the security and comfort of a safe and decent home. We know that many landlords provide safe and decent homes to their tenants, dealing with complaints and solving issues quickly. But sometimes tenants are left living in homes which are not safe or habitable, despite complaining to their landlord.

When this happens, tenants have a number of options to try to resolve the issue, including bringing a legal claim against their landlord for housing disrepair.

We want to hear from tenants, landlords, legal professionals and claims management companies about your experiences of housing disrepair claims, how the current process works, including the roles of companies and solicitors in these cases, and what you think doesn’t work or is unclear so that we can make sure it is as effective as possible.

But really, it seems to be about claims farmers, bulk claim firms and costs to social landlords. The questions/suggestions range from the possibly helpful to the absolutely ludicrous.

The actual answer to the claims farmer/bulk claims issue, and it is an issue, is threefold:

Most importantly, restore legal aid for housing conditions claims in full. It was one of the stupidest cuts in LASPO anyway (amongst stiff competition). This would have the effect of:

i) enabling tenants to bring meritorious (there is a merits check) claims with no success fee, and limited costs risk.
ii) where a tenant is legal aid eligible, the prospective solicitors would have to inform them of the availability of legal aid. If they did not, any conditional fee agreement would not be enforceable, meaning no retainer, meaning no entitlement to costs from the other side.
iii) Negligible cost to the Legal Aid Agency, as legal aid costs are repaid on successful claims. It is not so much a cost to the civil legal aid fund as a temporary loan to the solicitors and counsel.
iv) It would also have the welcome side effect of helping to revive the housing law legal aid sector.

Second – ban referral (or ‘marketing’) fees. There is no shortage of potential claims. There is no real need for claims farmers to exist in this sector. The supposed FCA regulation of housing conditions claims farmers is, to be honest, a joke.

Third, limit success fees to 25% of damages maximum. There is no reason why a competent and properly run practice could seek or justify a higher success fee.

There is no closing date given Closing date is 12 February 2026, but still, something to keep you occupied over Christmas and New Year.

The Government was to publish the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill before the end of the year. This has now been delayed until ‘early in the new year’.

The letter from the Minister states that the intention of the Bill will be

to reinvigorate and reform the commonhold model, make it easier for existing leaseholders to convert to commonhold, and ban the use of leasehold for most new flats. It will also abolish the threat of forfeiture, introduce a fairer enforcement scheme, and repeal draconian powers relating to estate rentcharges.

This is, of course, all huge stuff. It will face a lot of opposition and delaying tactics. So let us hope that it does indeed appear early in the new year as the first step towards full legislation.

Lastly, the seasonal gift. I have received a copy of a County Court judgment from April 2023 on a section 21 possession claim. The reason it is a bit of a gift is that it relates to the conviction of Sasha Charles and Landlord Advice UK for unauthorised conduct of litigation earlier this year.

As the judgment records, the possession claim

was issued on 20 December 2022 using a cover letter with headed paper from ‘Landlord Advice UK’ and signed by Mr S Charles. On the court file, a receipt for the court fee had been stapled to the cover letter (presumably by court staff), and it can be seen from that receipt that the issue fee was paid by Landlord Advice UK. On the claim form under the heading “Claimant or Claimant’s legal representatives address to which documents or payments should be sent …” (emphasis added) the address of Landlord Advice UK was given.

The claimant herself confirmed that Mr Charles had done everything and, although she had signed the claim form, she didn’t think she was sent the whole form and she hadn’t read it anyway.

The DDJ considered that this was clearly a Baxter v (1) Doble and (2) Doble Associates (2023) EWHC 486 (KB) situation (our note) and that Sasha Charles/Landlord Advice UK were unlawfully conducting litigation.

Amongst other highlights is the ‘solicitor’s agent’ instructed via Jeffery’s Solicitors (but by Sasha Charles/Landlord Advice UK) for the claimant quite properly raising his concerns over his instruction and right of audience.

In light of my findings as to the conduct of litigation by a firm not authorised to do so Mr Cleave invited me to strike out the claim on that basis. He explained that he had repeatedly drawn this issue to the attention to those instructing him and that if I struck out the claim he would convey the court’s criticism to Landlord Advice UK. He was clearly concerned both as to the practice in general and as to the fact that his own right of audience (if any) is derived from “assisting in the conduct of litigation” (Sch. 3 sub-para. 1(7)). Therefore the matter put him in a difficult and embarrassing position.

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process. First, as a section 21 claim, the underlying right to possession was founded on compliance with procedural requirements. Second, the conduct of Sasha Charles/Landlord Advice UK, given previous decisions on unlawful conduct of litigation against them, was particularly egregious.

So, there we are. ‘Evictions R Us’ unauthorised outfits are a menace to their clients, to the courts and even to those they instruct to represent their ‘client’ at hearings.

I hope you all have a restful and enjoyable break, and a happy new year. Next year promises to be… interesting.