CIH responds to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Discussion paper: How can the high-volume consumer claims market work better for consumers?

The right of social housing residents to fair and accessible legal advice and redress is a central element in addressing hazards in the home and resolving issues of disrepair. This is a particularly relevant part of Awaab’s Law, which came into effect in October of last year. Before Awaab’s Law, residents already had the right to bring a disrepair case through section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which places a contractual duty on the landlord to keep the home in good repair. Through section 9A of the Act, a similar duty ensures the dwelling is fit for habitation at the start of the tenancy and throughout its term. 

Awaab’s Law builds on those existing rights by introducing enforceable timescales for identifying and remedying the hazards that define when a property is unfit (section 10). Residents, therefore, need to have clear and accessible routes to redress, which include legal action where necessary. 

However, evidence has revealed a sharp increase in housing disrepair and fitness claims, with further evidence suggesting that vulnerable residents are being targeted by unclear practices and representation that lack transparency regarding both costs and the wider consequences for residents.

In a report by the RSH into the conditions of tenants' homes earlier this year, it reported evidence that social housing residents are, in some cases, receiving legal advice to decline access for inspection or repair whilst a legal claim is ongoing. Our members have serious concerns that this leaves residents living in unsafe conditions. It also presents providers with a regulatory challenge, as they are legally required to act within clear timescales but are unable to access the property to do so. We have concerns that this does not support the hard work being undertaken across the sector to make homes safer, warmer and healthier.

It is essential to note that social housing tenants already have established channels to resolve issues. They can raise concerns through their landlord’s internal complaints process, and while we know services are improving, we also recognise that things do not always go as they should. Where complaints are not resolved, residents can escalate matters to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS), which is a free and accessible route to independent redress. The HOS has repeatedly raised concerns in 2021 and again this year about residents being encouraged to pursue legal action too early, often by firms seeking to maximise claim volumes, and has highlighted the risk that “claims farming” poses to both tenants and landlords.

Therefore, the CIH strongly advocates for a system that enables redress and safety to work together, not against each other.

Recommendations

• A plain-language, point-of-instruction summary for all residents engaging legal services in housing disrepair cases, setting out how ‘no win, no fee’ agreements work, what costs may still apply, how any funding or referral fees operate, and what ATE insurance covers.
• This summary should also offer clear information on what free and trusted routes are available to residents before litigation, including the landlord’s internal complaints process, the Housing Ombudsman Service, and support from local MPs and ward councillors.
• Collaborative work across key regulatory bodies across the legal and housing sector to ensure residents have access to clear, consistent and accurate information about their rights.
• Clear professional standards around legal practice so that residents are not placed at undue risk or prolonged exposure to hazards within their homes.
• Consider strengthening the enforcement of existing SRA Principles and Law Society client-care standards, especially with respect to more vulnerable clients, to ensure that all legal advice and services are clear, fair and ethical.

The concerns we have highlighted in this response suggest that some practices presently fall short of existing SRA Principles and Law Society expectations, particularly for vulnerable residents and more complex cases. Therefore, we feel that these measures could contribute to an approach that supports both fair and equal access to justice, while promoting wider reforms to enhance health and safety in all residents' homes.

We recognise the importance of litigation funding in enabling access to justice and redress. We are committed to ensuring that residents are not prevented from exercising their legal rights due to financial constraints. However, evidence from our members suggests that there is a rise in commercially driven legal practices that are dependent on high volumes of claims, often with high legal costs, directly targeting social housing residents who are likely to be more vulnerable. 

There are also concerns that this creates further barriers for providers to inspect and resolve issues, diverting resources away from broader repairs and maintenance services and ultimately compromising resident trust. This is supported by the Legal Services Board’s recent proposal paper on a Consumer Protection Programme, which highlighted systemic risks, including those relating to social housing disrepair claims. Furthermore, the FCA’s warning list includes multiple firms providing housing related legal services without authorisation. 

We want to draw attention to Australia’s Claim Farming Practices Prohibition Act 2025 (New South Wales), which has made it a criminal offence to solicit, buy or sell referrals for claims, following evidence that vulnerable people were being targeted primarily for commercial gain. We believe this demonstrates a proportionate model for protecting consumers while preserving access to justice. This is also more reflective of practices across the EU, which is currently seeking to improve consistency around legal redress.

Recommendations

• Mandate the full disclosure of all funding and referral agreements at instruction, including the impact of success fees on awards.
• Create oversight reporting of referrals, claims and complaints which flows jointly between relevant regulatory bodies and organisations.
• Consider fixed or capped recoverable costs in housing disrepair claims to deter speculative litigation whilst protecting residents' legal rights.
• Improve access to free, accredited housing and legal advice, including through law centres, Citizens Advice, accredited housing advice providers, and local authority–funded services. Some areas have already benefited from additional government funding, but consistent and expanded provision would help ensure residents can access impartial advice before entering what could be costly legal arrangements.

Whilst we supported the underlying premise of ATE to ensure access to legal redress without incurring unaffordable costs, there is evidence to suggest that, within housing disrepair cases, this approach does not always work as intended. It has been reported that residents are not always properly informed about costs and responsibilities, especially after a case loss. In fact, a recent SRA Thematic Review (2025) found that fewer than half of firms clearly explained their funding or insurance costs, which echoes concerns raised by our members.

Furthermore, the impact on social housing residents is particularly serious, with those living in social housing much more likely to be on low income and/or have long-term health conditions, which means they can often lack access to independent legal or financial advice. Therefore, these factors mean that unclear or unsuitable insurance products are much more likely to have a disproportionate impact on social housing residents, which needs to be considered in terms of regulatory reform.

Recommendations

• Develop plain language ‘key facts’ materials that help clearly explain ATE coverage, exclusions, costs and payment terms.
• Consider a joint review of ATE products in housing disrepair, assessing marketing, intermediary fees, and case-closure practices.
• Strengthen the complaints and redress process for mis-sold or unclear policies.
• Ensure that residents are informed, at the outset, of the free alternatives available, including the landlord’s complaints procedure, the Housing Ombudsman Service, MPs, councillors and free independent advice from law centres, Citizens Advice and accredited housing advice services. These routes can often resolve issues without the financial risks associated with ATE based litigation.

As previously highlighted, due to the rise in high-volume litigation, we have concerns that regulatory oversight may not be able to protect all residents at risk. The recent collapse of SSB Law Group Ltd is a clear warning of how the current system can leave claimants without recourse or protection. 

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.

Recommendations

• Implement higher levels of authorisation and proactive monitoring in the case of high-volume claimant firms.
• Develop a Memorandum of Understanding between SRA, FCA, MHCLG and the Housing Ombudsman for the sharing of information and coordinated regulation.
• Incorporate ethical and cultural standards within SRA regulation.
• Introduce mandatory file-transfer protocols and consumer notification standards that protect claimants’ interests when companies go out of business or merge.

As the challenges highlighted in this consultation span multiple regulatory and professional settings, we recommend that collaborative solutions be developed that bring together the legal, housing and consumer sectors. 

We wanted to highlight the recent Southern Housing v Emmanuel (2025) judgment as an example of wider legal challenges in ensuring safety when residents refuse access to their property. In this case, it was the rules that social landlords do not have the power of entry, which conflicts with their legal duties under housing safety legislation. As mentioned earlier, legal advice to limit or prevent landlord access can unintentionally prolong exposure to damp, mould and other hazards, thereby undermining both resident safety and landlords’ legal compliance.

Therefore, approaches that can now explore stronger collaboration between relevant sectors and regulatory bodies can help ensure that both residents' privacy and their rights to redress remain protected, without compromising standards around safety and decency.