Housing conditions claims can often be an uphill battle for tenants, especially when dealing with complex legal procedures and landlord opposition. However, a recent case handled by 8PP instructed by First Legal Solicitors showcases how strategic legal action can turn the tide, ensuring justice and fair compensation for tenants facing substandard living conditions.
Case background
The Claimants, PM and LM, tenants of social housing provider Mosscare St Vincents Housing Group Limited (MSV), initiated legal proceedings against their landlord on 1 September 2023 in the County Court at Manchester. Their claim sought specific performance (i.e., mandatory repairs) and damages for breach of contract arising out of them being forced to endure unacceptable living conditions in their rented property. Despite their clear right to seek relief following PM and LM’s unsuccessful attempts to compromise their claim with MSV under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims, the case initially faced significant procedural roadblocks.
On 20 January 2024, the court allocated the claim to the Small Claims Track (SCT), which generally limits legal cost recovery. Recognising the impact of this decision, the Claimants’ legal team at First Legal, filed an application to set aside the order allocating the claim to the SCT and to allocate the claim afresh to the Fast Track, where full legal costs recovery would be possible. This application was heard and dismissed by Deputy District Judge (DDJ) Lee on 22 February 2024.
The Appeal: challenging Judicial Discretion
Determined to ensure a fair outcome, First Legal Solicitors instructed Tom Julian of 8PP to provide advice as to the merits of appealing the DDJ’s order and to draft the Grounds of Appeal and Skeleton Argument in support of an appeal. The appeal focused on:
- The discretionary nature of track allocation, as DJ Lee acknowledged that while housing conditions claims typically belong in the Fast Track, the Claimants’ case could be proportionality dealt with on the SCT having regard to the factors in CPR 26.13(1); despite the value of the claim for works at the property and the value of the Claimants’ claim for general damages both on the face of things having a value in excess of the £1,000.00 SCT limit.
- The potential unfairness of limiting cost recovery when tenants are seeking specific performance, particularly where legal representation is crucial.
Permission to Appeal on Paper: A strong legal argument
A notable aspect of this case was that permission to appeal was granted on paper, a relatively rare occurrence, with the court citing reasons for the granting of permission which were taken directly from Tom Julian’s skeleton argument. , The strength of the legal arguments—particularly concerning the starting point for allocation in housing conditions claims contained in CPR 26.9(1)(b), the issue of proportionality and fairness in cost recovery – led the judge to grant permission to appeal without requiring oral submissions and any further time for deliberation.
This decision reinforced the importance of ensuring tenants can pursue housing disrepair claims without being unfairly disadvantaged by procedural technicalities.
Settlement & success: A fair resolution
With permission to appeal having been granted on paper, the Defendant agreed to settle the case rather than proceed with further litigation. Under the terms of the Tomlin Order, the landlord agreed to:
- Pay the Claimants £2,500 in compensation
- Carry out the necessary repair works to their property
- Cover the full legal costs of the claim and appeal which following negotiations, were agreed at £22,000.
This outcome ensured that the Claimants obtained both an order for the necessary repairs to be carried out to their home and damages for the distress and inconvenience caused by MSV’s failure to observe their obligations under the tenancy agreement entered into with the Claimants, demonstrating the value of challenging discretionary judicial decisions, where procedural fairness is at stake.
Key takeaways for Tenants and Legal Practitioners
This case offers valuable insights for both tenants and legal professionals handling housing disrepair claims:
- Judicial Discretion on Track Allocation Matters: While housing conditions claims typically belong in the Fast Track, courts are still allocating claims inappropriately to the SCT using its case management powers and the wide discretion afforded to it when dealing with allocation to track. This discretion should be carefully examined and, where necessary, challenged.
- Legal cost recovery is a key consideration: One of the strongest arguments for appeal was the potential unfairness of restricting cost recovery in specific performance claims, which often require legal representation.
- Strategic Appeals can lead to fairer outcomes: The success of this appeal highlights the importance of well-argued legal challenges to procedural decisions that may disadvantage tenants.
- Settlements can secure justice efficiently: The granting of permission to appeal alone prompted the Defendant to settle favourably, saving time and additional costs while ensuring justice for the Claimants.
Conclusion: Ensuring fairness in housing litigation
8PP’s handling of this case highlights its members expertise in dealing with housing conditions claims and their commitment to securing justice for tenants. By successfully challenging the discretionary SCT allocation and securing a fair settlement, this reinforced the need, where appropriate, for careful scrutiny of judicial decisions reached in relation to housing disrepair claims, in particular, those concerning allocation to track.
While this case does not establish new precedent, it serves as a critical reminder that track allocation decisions can significantly impact access to justice, and procedural fairness must always be a priority.
For more information on how 8PP can assist with housing conditions claims, contact our expert team today.
