A Liverpool firm publicly named by its council opponent after a failed housing disrepair claim has vowed to not be stopped from bringing such cases.

Ashfield District Council in Nottinghamshire issued a press release in September saying it had secured a wasted costs order for £10,950 against Bingham Long. The council said a claim on behalf of a tenant was ‘baseless and improperly instigated’.

The Gazette has obtained a transcript of the ruling from District Judge Heppell, sitting in August at Mansfield County Court. It records that the judge found claimant Martin Cooke’s solicitors ‘acted improperly’ and that he brought the claim only because someone knocked on his door. 

The judge further found that the solicitors ‘acted unreasonably’ in starting proceedings: there was no notice before the letter of claim and the firm was ‘culpably indifferent’ to the claimant’s ‘vexatious conduct’.

Read more

The judge heard submissions that the solicitors’ job was to proceed with the claim, but he said in response: ‘[The solicitors] have also got duties to the court, as officers of the court, duties to comply with the overriding objectives in the CPR, and professional duties. It is not just a single duty to the client to run the claims. Solicitors have to advise their clients not to proceed with claims or to advice [sic] where there is risk involved.’

Gerard Long, managing director of Bingham Long, said the firm was still looking into a potential appeal. He stressed that this was the only wasted costs order ever made against the firm, which settles 40 cases a month with local authorities.

The council’s attempt to publicise the outcome of this particular case was a way to try and ‘deflect the real issues’ about tenants’ properties not being properly maintained, he said. 

‘This only motivates us more to fight for justice on behalf of the clients against the real culprits who allow vulnerable people to live in these hazardous living conditions,’ Long said. He added that the firm acts only on client instructions and does not bring frivolous or unsubstantiated claims. In the Cooke case, the client signed a retainer, provided a detailed witness statement, and supplied documentary evidence demonstrating disrepair and repeated reports to the local authority.

To the judge's finding that the claimant’s witness statement was not drafted in his ‘own words’, Long said a copy of the statement was sent to the client and it was emphasised that he should read every line carefully and immediately raise any concerns or proposed amendments.

He added that the firm consistently sought the client’s instructions throughout the claim process, which allowed it to continually evaluate the overall chances of success, and engaged in ‘detailed’ phone conversations with the client before serving the witness statement.

The dispute between the firm and local authority is being replicated across the country, with councils spending substantial amounts defending housing disrepair claims. An indication of how costly this is was provided in a public report produced last month ahead of Newcastle City Council’s finance and budget monitoring scrutiny committee meeting.

The report revealed that legal services spending in the first quarter had reached almost £2.5m – well over the £1.7m that had been budgeted for. The overspend was attributed to a rise in the number of housing disrepair claims and the use of agency staff to plug staff shortages.