CIH response to the joint Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Ministry of Justice open call for evidence on housing disrepair claims

Whilst we recognise that access to appropriate legal advice and representation is vital for social housing residents, we have concerns that some elements of the legal services market are now both exploiting vulnerability and prolonging risks to social housing residents, rather than supporting them to address hazards in their homes.

There is growing evidence that elements of the legal services market are engaging social housing residents in ways that do not consistently prioritise their safety, wellbeing or informed decision-making. We are concerned that such practices are inconsistent with the purpose of Awaab’s Law and the wider reforms aimed at ensuring homes are safe, healthy and well-managed.

Regulatory evidence, sector research and practitioner insight consistently point to a system in which legal escalation is increasingly occurring before complaints, engagement or early resolution routes have been meaningfully used.  We feel that this means that there is a high and growing risk that, rather than legal process providing a fair and fallback means of redress to address serious or persistent disrepair issues, it is instead replacing existing, effective routes to advice and redress that do not actually support the overall resolution of issues of safety and decency.

Last year, the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s thematic review of high-volume consumer claims clearly evidenced housing disrepair as a high-risk area, followed by a warning notice in January of this year outlining their concerns with respect to ‘no win-no fee’ arrangements in high-volume consumer claims. The Law Society also identified an area of concern and called for evidence-based reform that reduces risk whilst not compromising access to justice.

This supports concerns previously and consistently raised by professionals in the social housing sector, who have warned that high-volume and ‘no win-no fee’ firms are increasingly targeting vulnerable tenants. In 2021, the Housing Ombudsman reported on evidence showing a concerning rise in ‘no win-no fee’ disrepair actions, which then informed their response to the Ministry of Justice’s call for evidence on the role of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Ministry of Justice’s 2022 final report on ADR highlighted inconsistencies in regulations, specifically noting that the absence of a single regulatory body was leaving gaps in oversight.

The Housing Ombudsman again raised the issue in its Repairing Trust spotlight report, warning that social housing residents have been targeted by "so-called claims-farmers", while noting the good practice emerging to protect and advise residents. Many of our members have sought to take action to resolve issues more effectively and support residents through several examples of ADR practices led by Lambeth Council and The Riverside Group.

More recent research commissioned by CIH, National Federation of ALMOs (NFA), Local Government Association (LGA), Association of Retained Council Housing (ARCH) and Councils with Almos Group (CWAG) on access and Awaab’s Law further highlights how barriers to engagement, fear of poor outcomes, and lack of confidence in complaints handling can push residents towards legal routes prematurely.

When this evidence is viewed together, it points to a problem with how the current system operates, rather than a straightforward change in landlord behaviour or a sudden increase in residents choosing to litigate.

Across regulatory work, sector research and member insight, a consistent pattern is evident. An increasing proportion of disrepair cases are entering the legal system before complaints processes or early resolution routes have been fully explored. In many cases, this appears to be driven by third-party activity and confusing or misleading marketing, rather than by residents making repeated or unsuccessful attempts to resolve issues directly with their landlord.

CIH members have shared multiple examples of cases where legal escalation has diverted attention away from practical problem-solving, even when hazards could have been addressed more quickly through access for inspection and repair.

This does not diminish the reality of genuine disrepair or the necessity of legal redress in serious cases. Instead, it highlights that the structure of redress pathways and incentives is shaping how and when disputes are escalated.

CIH members consistently report that claims are frequently initiated by third parties, with landlords receiving formal legal correspondence before having the opportunity to investigate or resolve the issue directly. Many residents are unaware of alternative routes.

This presents a significant risk that the current system is not achieving its intended objectives. Rather than protecting residents and improving housing conditions, the system is creating barriers to resolution, learning and practical solutions to address disrepair and raise standards. The evidence therefore points to a structural failure, rather than simply an increase in unresolved disrepair cases.

We feel it is important to highlight the implications for successful reform regarding housing safety and decency. Recent regulations, such as Awaab’s Law, are explicitly intended to promote earlier identification and resolution of serious hazards. However, when matters are unnecessarily escalated into a legal proceeding without regard for the resident's best interests, there is a real risk that both decency and safety are compromised.

CIH, however, is very clear that legitimate housing disrepair claims are an essential part of access to justice and accountability, particularly where serious hazards or persistent failures occur. We now want to work towards a system that prioritises resolution and resident safety.

Theme summary:

We recognise that the recent increase in disrepair claims highlights underlying weaknesses in the way disputes are managed and resolved within the redress system, rather than simply indicating a rise in unresolved cases. While legal escalation must remain an option for residents, this should not come at the expense of early engagement, learning and timely repairs.

Recommendations:

• We recommend adopting a complaints-first approach, supported by appropriate safeguards, to encourage early resolution of issues before legal action is considered.
• There should be stronger integration between landlord complaints processes, the Housing Ombudsman, and the courts to reduce fragmentation and duplication across the system.
• Early resolution should be explicitly recognised as a core policy objective across housing regulation, redress mechanisms and claims management activity.

Our work and wider evidence suggests that many residents are dealing with issues of disrepair alongside wider health concerns. This may also be accompanied by uncertainty or confusion about routes to redress and overall resident rights. CIH has previously highlighted,  along with the MHCLG, the disparity of vulnerable and disabled residents who are significantly more likely to live in homes with Category 1 hazards. Poor housing conditions, including damp and mould, cold, and overcrowding, are closely linked to respiratory illness, mental health impacts and wider health inequalities. This therefore suggests that resident vulnerability is not just incidental within housing disrepair cases, but an important and defining factor.

Casework from the Housing Ombudsman reinforces this, highlighting that residents experiencing disrepair often face power imbalances, poor communication and repeated failures to be heard before escalation. This supports wider work from the Better Social Housing Review, which recognises the structural inequalities in how residents experience services and access redress, particularly for those from marginalised or stigmatised groups. Both pieces of work have been clear about the positive impact of an open, responsive and empathetic approach to resolving issues of disrepair.

Furthermore, the SRA highlights heightened risks around informed consent, clarity of communication and consumer understanding in these circumstances, particularly where claims involve complex funding arrangements and third-party intermediaries. Our members are concerned and can evidence that this is disproportionately affecting more vulnerable residents.

Despite post-Grenfell reforms intending to strengthen resident voice, many residents continue to report feeling unheard, disbelieved or marginalised within formal systems, with continued evidence to support the view that stigma and power imbalance shape these interactions. This can result in residents' lived experiences of disrepair being treated as anecdotal or secondary to professional or technical assessments.

This context is important as it helps us understand why some residents turn to legal action to assert their agency and autonomy. It may also be that these avenues are presented to residents as valid and effective ways to resolve issues. However, evidence from the sector shows that this creates a narrow and risky space: exploitative or misleading practices can flourish precisely because residents are seeking voice, recognition and resolution.

This then means there is a careful balance to strike in terms of reform; there is a clear need to tackle practices that exploit vulnerability, obscure risk, or undermine informed consent. At the same time, residents must retain access to a wide range of equitable advice, advocacy and redress options, including legal support where appropriate. Reform that moves to restrict claims activity without a fuller understanding of the wider structural issues we have outlined could create further barriers to justice for residents.

The Claim Farming Practices Prohibition Act 2025, recently introduced in New South Wales, follows evidence that vulnerable people were being targeted through claim referral practices. It makes the buying and selling of claim referrals a criminal offence. While the UK context is different, this illustrates a proportionate approach to addressing exploitative practices while preserving access to justice and may therefore be useful when considering UK reform.

Theme summary:

Vulnerability, informed consent and consumer protection must be treated as core considerations in housing disrepair claims. Practices that exploit confusion, fear or unequal power undermine resident trust and risk compounding harm rather than resolving it, especially in the wider context of resident distrust, injustice and inequality. 

Recommendations:

• Stronger regulation and oversight of claims sourcing, referral arrangements and third-party involvement is required, particularly where vulnerable residents are concerned.
• Mandatory, evidenced signposting to landlord complaints processes and the Housing Ombudsman at the point of claim initiation should be introduced.
• There is a need for clearer, enforceable expectations around informed consent, communication, and the identification of vulnerability, aligned across legal, housing and consumer protection frameworks.

Legal redress is an essential part of addressing disrepair, particularly serious and unresolved disrepair. However, we suggest that current systems can create incentives that undermine prompt remediation of hazards.

The SRA’s findings on high-volume consumer claims highlight the extent to which housing disrepair cases are increasingly embedded within commercially driven litigation models. Our recent response to the SRA call for evidence on this matter revealed strong evidence from our members, suggesting a rise in commercially driven legal practices that depend on high volumes of claims, often with high legal costs, and that directly target social housing residents who are likely to be more vulnerable.

Furthermore, recent working groups with our members have shown that, in many instances, legal escalation can increase costs without improving resident outcomes. There are cases members have presented to us where the legal costs significantly outweigh the actual value of the underlying repairs. There are often consequences built into ‘no win-no fee’ arrangements, where residents may incur financial penalties even when practical solutions are available. This can divert resources away from proactive repairs and maintenance services, and undermine wider efforts to improve housing quality.

This is in direct conflict with strengthened housing regulation; both Awaab’s Law and the revised consumer standards are intended to support earlier identification and remediation of serious hazards. Furthermore, our members are committed to improving housing repairs and have made significant progress in this area. However, there is a risk that high-volume claims activity driven solely by financial gain can prolong residents' exposure to unsafe conditions.

We do not draw attention to this research to suggest that legal costs are always inappropriate or that claims should be wholly discouraged. However, it should also be noted that there are other effective, established channels for residents to resolve issues.

The Housing Ombudsman has raised concerns about residents being poorly advised to take early legal action by firms seeking to profit rather than offer effective forms of redress. The fact that this was raised in both 2021 and again last year demonstrates clearly that the current incentive structures are not aligned with the core objective of housing disrepair law: securing safe, habitable homes as quickly as possible. These incentive structures are shaped not only by commercial models, but also by the wider legal aid and advice framework within which disrepair cases are pursued.

Furthermore, changes made in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) have placed restrictions on when legal aid can be accessed in housing disrepair cases, which is now only available where a serious risk of harm can be evidenced, and funding no longer extends to the damages elements of a claim. There is a consistent pattern of evidence submitted across successive Parliamentary inquiries in 2015, 2022 and most recently in 2025 that highlight the negative impact this has on residents' access to justice. The Housing Law Practitioners Association has warned how removal of early advice and damages funding means legal intervention only occurs at crisis point.

When viewed in this context, the growth of more commercially driven, high-volume disrepair cases demonstrates the market gap that has emerged due to a decline in publicly funded early advice. We would argue that this gap is increasingly being filled with legal practices which will not always produce representation that aligns with remediation, prevention or equitable resident outcomes.

Theme summary:

CIH is clear that residents must retain access to legal redress where landlords fail to act. However, a system in which legal escalation increases costs, delays repairs and weakens preventative investment risks undermining both resident outcomes and the long-term sustainability of housing services.

Recommendations:

• Cost recovery and fee structures should be reformed to better align incentives with timely resolution and repair, including consideration of staged or fixed recoverable costs.
• Full disclosure of all funding and referral agreements should be required at instruction, including the impact of success fees on awards.
• Consider introducing fixed or capped recoverable costs in housing disrepair claims to deter speculative litigation whilst protecting residents' legal rights.
• More widely, the alignment between legal routes to redress and wider housing regulation on safety and decency should be improved. 

Lastly, broader evidence highlights the roles of trust, culture and power in the routes residents choose to seek redress. The Housing Ombudsman has repeatedly emphasised that complaints and redress systems are not simply procedural mechanisms, but relational ones, shaped by how residents experience interactions with their landlord. Where these relationships break down, formal escalation becomes more likely.

This is supported by more recent research on access, which also shows that residents' decisions about redress can be influenced by their perception of how their landlord will listen to and act on their concerns. If there has been a prior breakdown of trust or if their experiences with services have been poor or inconsistent, residents are more likely to seek external support, including legal avenues.  

A recent case has highlighted the wider legal challenges regarding access and safety, as a ruling that landlords do not have the power of entry conflicts with their legal duties under housing safety legislation. This case is a clear sign of the need for legal and procedural clarity around an Ethical Access Standard.

Furthermore, evidence from our engagement with residents and practitioners shows that some residents approach complaints and repair services with low expectations, due to previous experiences or wider structural issues. Here, legal intervention may feel like the only route to being taken seriously, even if it might not actually result in the most effective resolution.

Our members also report that, once legal proceedings have begun, trust and communication can break down further, often resulting in little or no access to the property and creating real barriers to resolution. This has implications beyond the resolution of individual cases; it also hinders opportunities to build positive relationships with residents and to learn and prevent.

The evidence, therefore, suggests that poorly designed reforms risk unintended consequences. Measures that focus narrowly on legal process, without addressing access, trust and culture, may shift behaviour without improving outcomes. In contrast, reforms that strengthen access, transparency and relationships can reduce escalation while preserving residents’ rights.

Given the parallels of improvements to professionalisation and standards in social housing, a shared emphasis on professionalism and integrity across housing and legal services could strengthen public trust.

We are clear that as part of this collaboration, residents should be active participants in addressing wider structural issues of trust. Voice will be central to the success of any reform of housing disrepair redress.  

Theme summary:

Access barriers, breakdowns in trust and organisational culture are central drivers of escalation in housing disrepair claims. Reform that ignores these dynamics risks entrenching, rather than resolving, system failure.

Recommendations:

• Access, trust and the relationship between residents and landlords should be explicitly factored into the design of any claims reform and redress pathways, rather than treated as secondary or implicit considerations.
• We support the development of a Memorandum of Understanding between the SRA, FCA, MHCLG and the Housing Ombudsman to enable better information sharing, clearer escalation routes and more coordinated regulatory oversight.
• Stronger coordination across housing regulation, legal regulation and redress bodies is required to reduce fragmentation and address conflicting incentives that currently undermine early resolution.
• Reforms should be co-designed with residents and trusted intermediaries to maximise their effectiveness, and to ensure that changes reflect the practical realities of housing conditions, access and repair.
• Lastly, the government should coordinate and/or support further research and work to define an Ethical Access Standard, which should aim to provide procedural clarity and consistent, ethical approaches to access.

For more information on our response, please contact Dr Eve Blezard, CIH policy lead – asset management, building safety and culture: eve.blezard@cih.org.