Hasan v Bristol City Council: Tenant rights strengthened as Stay Application refused
In a recent case at Bristol County Court, the court has demonstrated that a tenant will not always be forced to exhaust a landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP) before pursuing a housing disrepair claim. Hasan v Bristol City Council (Claim No: L15ZA360) is an important reminder that court-ordered mediation – and not unilateral landlord processes – remains a very credible alternative to a landlord’s ICP for encouraging parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
Key Issues in the Case
Mr Jibril Abdallah Hasan brought a housing disrepair claim against Bristol City Council, his landlord. In response, the Council applied to the court for a three-month stay of proceedings under CPR 26.5(1) to force Mr. Hasan to engage in Stage II of its internal complaints procedure, a free, non-court-based process for resolving disputes.
The Defendant’s application, dated 9 December 2024, came before the court on 28 February 2025. Notably, the Council failed to comply with the court’s directions for the hearing requiring a skeleton argument to be filed at least three days before the hearing; it was instead filed after hours at 5:03pm the night before the hearing. This procedural misstep compounded the Council’s difficulties.
The Court’s decision
District Judge Davies dismissed the Council’s application, noting that:
- Internal Complaints Procedures (ICPs) are not mandatory ADR: The court refused to stay the proceedings to compel the claimant to complete the ICP, finding that it is not a legally required step before litigation
- Mediation had already been offered: Mr. Hasan had offered to engage in mediation as an alternative to the Council’s ICP, showing a willingness to resolve the dispute without litigation. The court recognised this as sufficient evidence of an openness to ADR
- Non-compliance with court directions: The Council’s late filing of its skeleton argument hindered the court’s ability to consider its case fully, and the judge explicitly noted this procedural default.
The judge instead ordered the parties to engage in court-ordered mediation, underscoring that while ADR is to be encouraged, it must be voluntary and fair.
Why this case matters
- Reaffirming tenant autonomy
The decision confirms that tenants will not in all circumstances be compelled to exhaust a landlord’s own complaint processes before seeking judicial relief. It will depend on the circumstances of the case and the structure and make-up of the ICP being proposed for use. This is a crucial protection for tenants facing housing disrepair issues who need timely access to court.
- ADR must be fair and court-supervised
The court’s preference for court-ordered mediation over unilateral ICPs highlights that ADR should be conducted on a level playing field with court oversight, ensuring fairness and impartiality.
- Procedural Compliance is Key
The Council’s failure to meet the court’s directions regarding skeleton arguments undermined its application. This serves as a reminder to all parties that procedural rules and adherence to court orders matters.
Implications for tenants and landlords
For tenants, this judgment provides confidence that their rights to access the courts cannot be blocked by an internal process controlled by the landlord. In appropriate cases, they retain the right to be involved in choosing between the various forms of ADR, and in some cases, between ADR and litigation.
For landlords, particularly local authorities, the case is a warning that attempts to sideline or delay litigation via internal processes will face robust judicial scrutiny. If ADR is to be considered, it should be court-supervised and genuinely consensual, unless the ICP proposed offers structure, equality of arms, and is designed to deal with all issues that are live between the parties in litigation. It was of major concern to the judge in this case that the ICP put forward by the Council for use did not deal with issues, such as legal costs.
Looking ahead
This case aligns with broader trends in housing disrepair litigation: the courts are keen to support ADR, but not at the expense of a tenant’s fundamental right to seek legal redress. The refusal to stay proceedings forcing the claimant to utilise the Council’s ICP in favour of ordering independent third-party based mediation sets a clear precedent that ADR cannot be weaponised to frustrate access to justice.
How 8PP can help
At 8PP, we are experts in housing disrepair litigation and understand the delicate balance between ADR and court proceedings. Our team is ready to help navigate these challenges and secure the best possible outcome.
If you are facing housing disrepair issues, please contact 8PP today via clerks@8PP.co.uk