Court refuses to dismiss two housing disrepair claims despite breaches of pre-action protocol.
Two housing disrepair claims will proceed after a landlord’s attempt to strike them out over alleged procedural breaches was firmly rejected in court.
In Lancastle v Curo Group (Albion) Ltd, the defendant argued that the claimants’ solicitors had failed to follow the pre-action protocol by unilaterally instructing their own expert surveyors without landlord input. The landlord’s representative, Rebecca Rees of Hugh James, accused claimant firms of routinely bypassing protocol to “tie the hands” of defendants, forcing them to either accept the claimants’ expert reports or pay to commission their own at considerable expense and risk.
Rees warned of an “unhealthy connection” between certain housing disrepair solicitors and the surveyors they appoint, claiming the practice undermines fairness in resolving disputes.
Embed from Getty ImagesHowever, His Honour Judge Blohm KC, sitting at Bristol County Court, dismissed the landlord’s application for summary judgment. While he found that the claimants had indeed breached the pre-action protocol — including failing to supply fees or rates with the experts’ CVs and instructing prematurely — he concluded that these missteps did not amount to bad faith and were insufficient to justify striking out the claims. Striking them out, he said, would be disproportionate.
The two cases, heard together due to shared legal issues, illustrate the growing friction between claimant and defendant solicitors in housing disrepair disputes.
Case One: Damp, Mould and Infestation
In the first matter, a Bristol tenant instructed Bond Turner, a north west law firm, to claim against the landlord over a defective roof allegedly causing damp, mould and insect infestation. The letter of claim proposed a Manchester-based surveyor as an expert and gave the landlord 20 working days to object.
The landlord carried out its own inspection and reported no actionable breach of obligation. Nonetheless, the claimant’s solicitors went ahead, instructing their chosen expert, who assessed repair costs at £2,760.
Case Two: Property Faults and Delays
The second claim came from another Bristol tenant, represented by Liverpool firm Satchell Moran, over alleged property faults. The firm notified the landlord of its intention to instruct a Lancashire surveyor. The landlord requested the claim be paused pending completion of its internal complaints process, but the claimant’s solicitors proceeded with the survey. The claim’s value was estimated between £1,000 and £5,000.
The landlord contended that in both cases, the claimants had made up their minds to use their own experts “come what may,” breaching the collaborative spirit of the pre-action protocol.
Defence and Counter-Arguments
Laura Walsh of Satchell Moran stated that the expert engaged in her client’s case was the only one available. She noted that the landlord was free to appoint its own expert if it wished.
The claimants accused the landlord of hypocrisy — seeking to rely on reports from its own in-house surveyors while preventing tenants from obtaining independent expert evidence. They argued that the protocol emphasises speedy resolution of disputes, yet in these cases the landlord had neither admitted liability nor provided a coherent denial.
Judicial Findings
Judge Blohm accepted there had been breaches of the protocol but ruled there was no abuse of process. He stressed that expert evidence in such matters should be restricted to what is necessary and obtained within the procedural timelines, but said the breaches here did not warrant the “nuclear option” of striking out.
Both claims will now proceed to be heard in full, leaving the substantive issues — and the disputed expert evidence — to be tested at trial.