The housing disrepair protocol in practice

The Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims (England) is central to any housing disrepair claim, so the term is likely to arise if you’re pursuing such a case. The Protocol applies to residential property in England and aims to ‘promote the speedy and appropriate carrying out of any remedial works which are the landlord’s responsibility’, as well as to ‘ensure tenants receive any compensation to which they are entitled’.Most importantly, it is intended to avoid unnecessary litigation. In this blog, trainee solicitor in our consumer claims team, Sophie Sheppard, takes us through one of her recent housing disrepair cases that did proceed to litigation.

By Sophie Sheppard

Published 4 July 2025

In a recent housing disrepair case, my client was left with no other viable option but to issue proceedings after the defendant landlord refused to accept reasonable settlement terms – terms to which they were keen to agree to after court proceedings were issued.

The client contacted us for help in 2024 after their landlord failed to address repairs for damp and mould that had appeared in the living room, dining room, kitchen and the bedrooms.

Damp and mould issues

I engaged the Protocol by sending a Letter of Claim setting out the items of disrepair in the property and how long the client had been reporting the disrepair their landlord.

Importantly, we included the CVs of surveyors that could be used as single joint expert to assess the disrepair and recommend the necessary works to be completed.

The landlord responded to our Letter of Claim and provided disclosed relevant records, ie tenancy agreement, repair and contact records, within the required 20 working days as set by the Protocol.

Upon review of the disclosed records, I determined that the client had been reporting the damp and mould in the property since February 2022. During this time, the landlord had failed to complete repair work to a reasonable standard causing the damp and mould to persist.

Consequently, I sent instructions a surveyor to complete an inspection of the property and attempted to arrange a joint inspection with the landlord as they had rejected our suggestions for a single joint expert. The landlord, however, failed to respond to our request for a joint inspection, and we proceeded on a single basis.

On receipt of both parties’ reports, it was clear the surveyors agreed on the majority of works required in the property, however there was a dispute on two items of disrepair.

Damage to the living room window which required a replacement unit
Mould spores on chimney breast in the bedroom due to a lack of sufficient ventilation.

Landlord disagreements

Both sides made two offers of settlement each, however disagreement persisted on whether works were required to the living room window and ventilation the bedroom which was causing mould growth. The landlord denied it was their responsibility.

Instead of issuing proceedings immediately, the client wanted us to discuss with the landlord whether these two items could be agreed on so that a settlement could be made, and repair work started as soon as possible.

At the client’s instructions, I made five separate attempts to initiate without prejudice discussions with the landlord, but the landlord failed to respond. It was this lack of engagement that prompted us to recommend to the client that proceedings should be issued.

It was on receipt of a Notice of Issue that the landlord reached out to us again to discuss settlement of the claim. The landlord made repeated requests for an extension to file their defence in order for negotiations to resume.

The two items that defendant previously refused to agree to, were now longer an issue for them, and made my client an improved offer. As a result, the proceedings were stayed on acceptance of the landlord’s offer to settle.

The critical point to this case was that the landlord ultimately agreed to carry out all the works originally proposed by the claimant’s surveyor. Legal action and associated costs could have been avoided had the defendant engaged constructively at an earlier stage.