The proposed pre-action protocol for housing disrepair cases will complement the Civil Procedure Rules, the purpose of which is to ensure that litigation is pursued as a last resort and is cost-conscious, speedy and fair.

The days when many housing disrepair cases needlessly end up in court may soon be over.The protocol, in draft form and produced by the Law Society's housing disrepair protocol working group, is expected to be finalised this month following interested parties' responses to Chancery Lane.Wendy Backhouse, partner at London firm Hodge Jones & Allen, was on the working group and says: TIn some areas, things have changed in the last two years.

Some landlords are agreeing to appoint joint experts, something triggered by the CPR.

Also, offers of compensation are being made earlier and repairs are being dealt with more quickly.

The purpose of the protocol is to make sure that good practice happens across the country.'The protocol is being welcomed.

Andrew Brookes is chairman of the Housing Law Practiti oners Association (HLPA) and acts for tenants.

He says: 'We hope it will reduce the time it takes for compensation to be paid and work to be carried out for tenants where the property is in disrepair, and reduce the costs for all concerned.'Iain Davies, an associate with Birmingham firm Gateley Wareing, says the protocol is essential to change the approach to dilapidations disputes: 'Such cases usually start with the landlord's agent anticipating the lease term end and arranging for a building surveyor to prepare a comprehensive schedule of dilapidations.

Very often this will include items which cannot be required by the terms of the lease, will stretch the meaning of disrepair to breaking point, and will ascribe astronomic values to the works to be done.'Typically, he says, there are no discussions with the tenant before the schedule is served, and the tenant's response will be to instruct another building surveyor to prepare a reply which adopts a similarly partisan approach -- but from the opposite point of view.The result is that the parties appear to be thousands of pounds apart, the landlord starts legal proceedings thinking that he cannot lose, and the lawyers for both sides get stuck into what they think is high-value litigation.Mr Davies says: TIn fact, neither side has correctly put its position and the case will settle before trial once this becomes evident.

By then, however, both landlord and tenant will have run up significant costs.'He adds that the protocol will formalise the requirement for the parties' experts to adopt a more consensual approach or face costs sanctions.

The protocol will require the landlord to file a response to the tenant's letter of notification -- or the more substantive letter of claim -- within 21 days.Ross Berridge, partner at Burges Salmon in Bristol, acts for landlords.

He says: 'I am certain landlords will welcome the protocol in principle, though the time limits seem a little optimistic.

It remains to be seen how it will perform in practice.'Mohammed Farooq, senior lawyer at Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, says: 'Twenty-one days for a landlord to respond is too limited.

The personal injury pre-action protocol timescales are better: 21 days to acknowledge receipt and a further period of three months to investigate the matter.'The landlord is also required to make full disclosure within that time period, but Mr Farooq says: 'There is no need for disclosure of the landlord's documents until such time as the landlord has decided to deny liability.'David Foster, partner at London firm Fisher Meredith and member of the HLPA, sees things differently: 'We can have a problem where recalcitrant landlords say that the tenant can't see the internal repairs record until the disclosure stage after proceedings are issued.' He says proceedings will be avoided when disclosure comes earlier.Although the protocol is welcomed by housing practitioners, the question is whether it goes far enough.

In its formal response to the draft protocol, the HLPA expresses concern that Tthere appears to be no provision in the draft to cover urgent disrepair cases where remedial repairs ought to be attended to immediately, and where it ought to be appropriate to commence legal proceedings without following the protocol'.Mr Berridge adds that landlords say there is little substance in many housing disrepair claims, and continues: 'This is particularly the case where tenants raise counterclaims [with which the protocol does not deal] based upon disrepair, to actions for possession based upon non-pay ment of rent.'The protocol requires that costs or out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of claims should be paid by the landlord if it is agreed that repair works should be carried out, or compensation paid.

Mr Foster feels it does not go far enough.The majority of tenants' cases will be publicly funded, so costs may be deducted from any compensation they receive.

Mr Berridge says: 'From the tenant's point of view, it will be essential that the landlord pays the tenant's legal costs if the case settles.' He adds: TIt is also essential that there is a method of settling any argument on costs.

Any disputes should be referred to the county court.'Under the protocol, will parties be in a position to settle cases more quickly? Mr Foster says that local authority landlords are prepared to settle and it is 'extremely rare to go to a final hearing'.

He adds: 'The hope is that it will bring forward the date for settlement.' However, private landlords vary greatly and are not always prepared to 'bite the bullet and settle until the final hearing'.Mr Foster says there is an answer to this problem: 'There needs to be greater control of private landlords through local authorities by methods such as registration.

This would provide a degree of informal control.

It seems they could insist private landlords sign up and agree with the protocol, and confirm they will adhere to it.' If they failed to comply, enforcement could take place through the local authority.Ms Backhouse says: 'Many private landlords can be difficult but the protocol will apply to them equally.

However, it is difficult to know how the protocol will impact on them.

A landlord who is legally represented will probably follow the protocol.

The problem will arise when private landlords take cases on themselves, without knowing the legal procedure.'Charles Robinson, partner at Sinclair Taylor & Martin in London, acts for housing association landlords.

He says: 'I think the protocol might help to concentrate the mind of the poorer kind of housing officer.

There is quite a range of ability of housing officers.

Some are very good, but others need to have a bit of a threat to press them to deal with disrepair.

The protocol is a formal threat of proceedings that may get things moving when months of unconnected correspondence wouldn't.'Mr Robinson adds: TOne thing that frightens landlords is the threat of prosecution under the Environmental Protection Act and I'm not sure how the protocol ties in with that.'While the spirit of the protocol is laudable, it needs to be tightened if it is to be workable.

Housing law practitioners are awaiting a protocol that will keep cases out of the courts, and encourage settlement, finally laying to rest the ghost of Rachman -- the celebrated 'run-em-down and throw-em-out' landlord of a bygone era.COMMITTEE WATCHFor further information about the work of the Law Society's housing law committee, please contact Claire Morgan, tel: 020 7320 5693 or e-mail: claire.morgan@lawsociety.org.uk.