Neil Smith of 8PP successfully defends Tenant rights in Stojalowski v Bristol City Council.
Neil Smith of 8PP has secured a significant victory in Stojalowski v Bristol City Council, a case concerning the allocation of housing disrepair claims.
Whilst it was a county court level judgment, and so not a binding precedent, the matter had been adjourned at the first hearing and reserved to HHJ Blohm KC for the purpose of providing critical guidance to judges in the Bristol County Court when dealing with similar cases, particularly those where local authorities attempt to allocate claims to the small claims track (SCT) rather than the fast track (FT). This decision is an important step in ensuring that tenants receive fair treatment and access to justice in housing disrepair cases.
Key issues in the case
The case revolved around a dispute between tenant Mary-Ann Stojalowski and Bristol City Council regarding serious disrepair issues at her property. The key legal question was whether the case should be allocated to the SCT or the FT.
Bristol City Council advanced several arguments in an attempt to justify SCT allocation:
- Exhaustion of Internal Complaints Procedure (ICP): The Council argued that tenants must complete their internal complaints process before issuing proceedings, and failure to do so should lead to a stay of the claim
- Specific performance against Social Landlords: The Council contended that courts should not order specific performance (i.e., requiring the landlord to carry out repairs) where the landlord (at the time of allocation) is making efforts to fulfill its obligations
- Financial Considerations: The Council submitted that the financial burden of allocating cases to the FT should be taken into account, citing a significant rise in housing disrepair claims against them
- Reliance on Jalili v Bury Council: The Council argued that the value of repairs should be assessed based on the cost to the landlord rather than the open market, thereby reducing the claim’s value to fit within SCT limits.
The Court’s Decision
HHJ Blohm KC decisively rejected the Council’s arguments, ruling in favour of the Claimant’s position. The key findings were:
- ICP is not a barrier to litigation: The Court held that while ADR is encouraged, claimants are not required to exhaust internal complaints procedures before issuing legal proceedings and is not a matter pertinent to allocation
- Specific Performance Orders can be made: The Court confirmed that landlords, including local authorities, are not immune from orders requiring them to carry out repairs in circumstances where the landlord has indicated a willingness to, or is doing it’s best to, carry out the repairs. As long as there is a live claim for specific performance at the time of allocation, then this is all that the Court should concern itself with for allocation purposes. There was no existing authority to support the Defendant’s position to say that a contracting party, who was trying but failing to perform its contractual obligations, was immune from an order for specific performance
- Fiscal concerns are irrelevant to allocation: While local authorities face financial pressures, allocation decisions should be based on legal and factual merits, not budgetary/public policy concerns
- Rejecting Jalili v Bury Council Interpretation: The Court ruled that repair costs should be based on open market estimates, ensuring claimants are not unfairly pushed into SCT due to artificially low valuations. HHJ Blohm KC expressed the view that Jalili was wrongly decided. He said that the purpose of CPR 26.9(1)(b)(ii) was to provide an objective yardstick of cost for the purposes of allocation. It cannot be right that it should vary according to the economies of the particular defendant. ‘Cost’ here must refer to the no doubt local but open market cost of carrying out the works.
Why this case matters
Guidance for Future Housing Disrepair Claims
This decision provides crucial support for claimants facing similar allocation arguments from landlords and local authorities. It reinforces that:
- Internal complaints procedures do not override a tenant’s right to litigate and are not relevant to issues surrounding allocation
- Local authorities can be subject to specific performance orders for outstanding repairs in circumstances where they are either willing to, or are trying their best to carry out repairs. The main consideration should be whether or not at allocation stage, the Claimant is actively seeking an order for specific performance
- Allocation decisions should not be influenced by a landlord’s financial position
- Repair costs should be assessed objectively based on market value rather than the actual cost to that particular landlord.
1. Implications for Tenants
The ruling strengthens tenants’ ability to seek justice in housing disrepair cases. It prevents landlords from using procedural arguments to delay or limit tenants’ legal recourse and ensures Claimants can access proper legal representation in the FT rather than being forced into the SCT where legal costs are generally unrecoverable.
2. Implications for Local Authorities and Landlords
For social landlords, particularly local councils, this judgment signals a warning that attempts to avoid FT allocation will face strong judicial scrutiny. Attempting to, but failing to carry out repairs, is not enough to avoid and order for specific performance and this should be taken as the position for allocation purposes. The ruling also highlights that courts will focus on the individual merits of a case rather than broader concerns about the financial burden on landlords.
3. Looking ahead: what comes next?
This case sets an important precedent in the Bristol County Court and will likely be cited in future allocation disputes. While it is not a binding decision, it provides persuasive authority that Claimants and their legal representatives can rely on when facing similar allocation arguments.
Key takeaways for legal professionals
- Expect continued disputes over allocation in housing disrepair claims, with local authorities likely to refine their arguments
- This ruling strengthens the case for FT allocation in disrepair claims exceeding £1,000 in value in circumstances where there is a live claim for specific performance at allocation stage
- Claimants should challenge any attempt to downplay the cost of repairs or rely on landlord-friendly cost assessments
- The Court’s rejection of financial hardship arguments suggests that broader public policy concerns will not outweigh Claimants’ rights in allocation decisions.
How 8PP Can Help
At 8PP, we have extensive expertise in housing disrepair claims and are well-equipped to challenge unfair allocation tactics used by landlords. This case underscores the importance of legal representation in securing justice for tenants. If you are dealing with a housing disrepair issue, our expert team can help you navigate the process and ensure the best possible outcome.
Click here to see the full judgement in Stojalowski v Bristol City Council
For expert advice on housing disrepair claims, contact 8PP today.
