Housing disrepair remains one of the most active claimant costs areas in 2026. For claimant solicitors, the key question is simple: are housing disrepair costs still recoverable on the standard basis, or are they now fixed?
The short answer is that many housing disrepair claims remain outside the mainstream fixed recoverable costs regime and can still attract standard basis costs. However, that does not mean costs recovery is automatic, easy or immune from challenge.
In 2026, housing disrepair costs sit in a difficult space. On one hand, properly handled HDR claims can still justify a detailed bill, N252 service, negotiation and, where needed, detailed assessment. On the other hand, paying parties are alive to proportionality, duplication, hourly rates, surveyor costs, claims management concerns and weak file evidence.
That means the issue is no longer just whether HDR costs are fixed or standard basis. The real issue is whether the bill is strong enough to survive the arguments that now follow almost every housing disrepair claim.
Are Housing Disrepair Costs Fixed in 2026?
In many standard housing disrepair claims, the answer remains no.
The extended fixed recoverable costs regime applies widely across the fast track and intermediate track, but there is an important carve-out for certain residential property claims. Claims relating to residential property or dwellings that include disrepair, possession or unlawful eviction are not treated in the same way as ordinary fixed costs claims.
For claimant firms, that is significant.
It means that where the claim is properly a housing disrepair claim and there is an entitlement to costs, recovery will often proceed by way of standard basis costs rather than a simple fixed costs table.
That usually means:
- a bill of costs or electronic bill;
- service of Notice of Commencement, usually N252;
- Points of Dispute if the paying party challenges the bill;
- Replies where appropriate;
- negotiation towards settlement; and
- detailed assessment if the matter does not resolve.
However, firms should not read the exemption too widely. The exact nature of the claim, the pleaded remedies, allocation, settlement wording and costs entitlement all matter. A claim with a disrepair element is not automatically a blank cheque for costs. The bill still has to be reasonable, proportionate, evidenced and properly drafted.
Why This Matters for Claimant Solicitors
Housing disrepair claims are often damages-light but work-heavy.
A file may involve months of client contact, repair complaints, disclosure, photographs, inspection arrangements, expert evidence, access issues, landlord delay, Part 36 offers and settlement negotiations. The damages may not be high, but the work required to get the claim to settlement can be significant.
That creates the usual tension in costs:
The claimant firm sees a file that required proper work. The paying party sees a modest damages claim and argues the costs are disproportionate.
That is why the bill must do more than list time entries. It must explain the claim. A good housing disrepair bill should show why the work was needed, why the file developed as it did, why the expert evidence was reasonable, why delay was not caused by the claimant and why the time claimed is proportionate to the issues actually faced.
If that narrative is missing, the paying party has an easy route to attack the bill.
Standard Basis Does Not Mean Full Recovery
One of the biggest mistakes in HDR costs is assuming that because the claim is outside fixed costs, the paying party must pay the bill in full. They do not.
Standard basis assessment still leaves room for serious reductions. The court will consider whether the costs were reasonably incurred, reasonable in amount and proportionate. Any doubt is usually resolved in favour of the paying party.
That is why housing disrepair bills are regularly attacked on:
- hourly rates;
- excessive routine correspondence;
- duplication between fee earners;
- excessive client calls;
- disproportionate time on low-value damages;
- surveyor fees;
- counsel’s fees;
- block billing;
- vague attendance notes;
- poor chronology;
- weak disbursement evidence;
- unnecessary work after settlement became likely; and
- failure to explain landlord delay or access issues.
In practical terms, standard basis recovery is only useful if the bill is drafted in a way that anticipates those attacks.
The Biggest HDR Costs Battlegrounds in 2026
1. Proportionality
Proportionality is the first argument paying parties reach for.
In housing disrepair, this is particularly common because the damages may be modest compared with the costs incurred. A claim may settle for a few thousand pounds, but the costs may be far higher once expert evidence, correspondence, negotiations and settlement work are included.
The answer is not to ignore proportionality. The answer is to explain the file.
A strong bill should make clear:
- the nature of the disrepair;
- when the landlord was put on notice;
- how long the issues continued;
- whether the landlord delayed inspection or works;
- whether the claimant was vulnerable;
- whether there were children in the property;
- whether damp, mould or water ingress was present;
- whether expert evidence was necessary;
- whether the defendant’s conduct increased costs; and
- whether settlement was delayed by the paying party.
A bare bill gives the paying party room to say the costs are too high. A properly drafted bill gives context.
2. Surveyor Fees
Surveyor fees are one of the most common areas of dispute in HDR claims. The fee is not recoverable merely because an invoice exists, and it is not excessive merely because the damages were modest. CPR 35.1 restricts expert evidence to what is reasonably required, and CPR 35.4(4) lets the court limit the amount recoverable from another party — so necessity, scope and amount are three separate questions.
The bill should not present the expert fee as an unexplained disbursement. Our full guide to when a surveyor fee is recoverable and when it is excessive covers Protocol paragraph 7, single joint instruction, repeat inspections and how to defend the amount.
3. Hourly Rates
Hourly rates remain a live issue in housing disrepair costs.
The 2026 Guideline Hourly Rates are important, but they are not the end of the argument. Paying parties still challenge grade, location, experience and whether the right level of fee earner carried out the work.
Where the challenge is specifically to senior involvement, our guide to defending Grade A rates in housing disrepair sets out how to answer it component by component.
A Grade A or Grade B fee earner doing routine administrative work will attract criticism. Equally, a complex file handled properly by an experienced solicitor should not be underclaimed simply because the damages were modest.
The safest approach is clean fee earner allocation. The bill should show:
- who did the work;
- their grade and experience;
- why senior input was required where claimed;
- which work was routine and which was technical;
- that administrative work has not been charged at solicitor rates; and
- that checking and supervision time is reasonable.
In housing disrepair, paying parties often look for easy rate reductions. Clean drafting removes some of that opportunity.
4. Telephone Calls and Client Contact
Telephone calls are not all treated alike. PD 47 distinguishes routine calls, generally dealt with in six-minute units, from substantive calls which properly amount to attendances — the test at paragraph 5.14 being the simplicity of the communication, not the fact that it happened by telephone.
Housing disrepair files generate genuine substantive client contact around expert evidence, repairs, access, offers and continuing defects. Vague or repetitive entries remain vulnerable to reduction. Our full guide covers when a client call is routine and when it is a recoverable attendance.
5. Defendant Delay
Defendant conduct can materially affect proportionality. CPR 44.3(5)(d) expressly includes additional work generated by the conduct of the paying party. Where delay, incomplete disclosure, failed repairs or other conduct generated additional reasonable work, that should be apparent from the bill and the chronology rather than raised for the first time in Replies.
The causal link is what carries the argument — conduct, the work it caused, why that response was reasonable, and what it reasonably cost. Our full guide to when landlord delay justifies additional costs works through the Part 44 provisions, the Housing Conditions Protocol deadlines and what does not become recoverable simply because the landlord was at fault.
Where the landlord is a social housing provider, the Housing Ombudsman may already have made findings about how it handles disrepair and complaints. Our partners at RemedyBridge maintain an index of published Housing Ombudsman decisions broken down by defect type, landlord and severity of finding, with each row linked to the source decision. It is a small sample and says so plainly — no percentages, no league table — but for a specific provider it can be a quick way to see whether a pattern of maladministration has already been found by someone other than you.
Each of those challenges is won or lost when the bill is drawn, not when it is assessed. The chronology above, the grade justification and the proportionality argument have to be built into the bill before it is served; they are far harder to retrofit once Points of Dispute have been drafted against a bill that never made them. That is the work our housing disrepair costs drafting service does, led by Mentor Nika, Head of Housing Disrepair Costs.
What Happens After an HDR Claim Settles?
Once damages settle, the costs position depends on the settlement wording.
This is where claimant firms need to be careful.
If the settlement clearly provides for the defendant to pay the claimant’s reasonable costs, to be assessed if not agreed, the route is usually straightforward. The receiving party can prepare the bill, serve N252 and commence detailed assessment if necessary.
If damages settle but the agreement does not properly deal with costs, problems can follow. Where the parties have settled all substantive issues, including which party is to pay costs, but the amount of costs remains in dispute and proceedings have not been issued, CPR 46.14 costs-only proceedings may be required. That is usually done by Part 8.
The practical point is simple: do not treat settlement wording as an afterthought. Before closing the damages file, make sure the costs entitlement is clear.
What Should Be Included in a Housing Disrepair Bill?
A strong HDR bill should not be drafted as a generic civil litigation bill.
It should reflect the specific work that housing disrepair claims require. The bill should usually include:
- a clear chronology;
- details of the disrepair;
- date of first notice to the landlord where available;
- Letter of Claim date;
- disclosure chronology;
- expert inspection and report dates;
- any defendant expert involvement;
- repair history;
- Part 36 offers;
- settlement date;
- damages recovered;
- costs entitlement;
- fee earner details;
- hourly rates;
- disbursement schedule;
- VAT treatment;
- proportionality explanation;
- Precedent S phase coding where required; and
- clear separation of routine and technical work.
The bill should tell the story of the claim. If the paying party can understand why the work was done, there is less room for artificial reductions.
Is Precedent S Needed for Housing Disrepair Costs?
In many cases, yes.
Where detailed assessment is required and the rules require an electronic bill, Precedent S should be prepared properly. This is especially important where the costs are significant or the matter is likely to be contested.
A weak electronic bill creates practical problems. Poor phase coding, unclear descriptions, inconsistent fee earner information and unsupported disbursements make it easier for the paying party to raise Points of Dispute. For HDR claims, the electronic bill should be prepared with the likely objections in mind.
The aim is not just to produce a technically valid bill. The aim is to produce a bill that can be negotiated effectively and defended if it reaches detailed assessment.
When Should Claimant Firms Issue Costs-Only Proceedings?
Costs-only proceedings should not be issued as a reflex. They are usually considered where:
- the substantive dispute has settled;
- no claim has been issued;
- the parties have agreed who should pay costs;
- the amount of costs cannot be agreed;
- the paying party is delaying; or
- a formal costs order is needed before detailed assessment can proceed.
In practice, claimant firms often give the paying party a reasonable opportunity to engage before issuing. But where the defendant will not make a sensible offer, will not confirm costs entitlement or keeps delaying, Part 8 may become necessary.
The key is to have the paper trail ready. That usually means:
- written settlement agreement;
- written confirmation of costs liability;
- bill or draft bill;
- correspondence showing attempts to agree costs;
- evidence that the amount remains disputed; and
- a clear request for an order that costs be assessed if not agreed.
Costs-only proceedings should be narrow, clean and properly evidenced.
Escaping Fixed Recoverable Costs: CPR 45.9
Where a claim is in the fixed costs regime, there is one route out of it and it is narrow.CPR 45.9 is headed “Claims for an amount of costs exceeding fixed recoverable costs”, and it provides that the court may consider a claim for costs greater than the fixed recoverable costs in Section VI, VII or VIII of Part 45 where there are exceptional circumstances making it appropriate to do so.
Two features of the rule are worth holding onto:
- Disbursements are excluded from the amount being compared. The rule is about the costs figure, not the outlay.
- If exceptional circumstances are established, CPR 45.9(2) gives the court a choice: it may summarily assess the costs, or order that they be subject to detailed assessment.
“Exceptional” is doing real work in that sentence. It is not a synonym for difficult, lengthy or expensive — a claim can be all three and still be an ordinary example of its type. The argument has to identify what took this claim outside the run of cases the fixed regime was designed for, and it is far easier to make when the file was documented with that in mind rather than reconstructed afterwards.
Why HDR Costs Are Under More Scrutiny
Housing disrepair claims have attracted increasing attention from government, landlords, insurers and local authorities.
The concerns usually focus on claims management activity, referral arrangements, marketing practices, proportionality and whether the current system encourages repairs or litigation.
For claimant solicitors, this makes costs presentation even more important.
A good HDR costs strategy should show that the claim was properly run, properly evidenced and reasonably progressed. It should avoid anything that gives the impression of a volume claim being handled without file-specific judgment. That means:
- no generic bills;
- no vague telephone entries;
- no unexplained disbursements;
- no excessive routine correspondence;
- no poor settlement wording;
- no unclear fee earner grades; and
- no weak proportionality narrative.
The stronger the scrutiny, the more important the costs file becomes.
Practical Checklist for Claimant Solicitors
Before serving an HDR bill, check the following:
- Is costs entitlement clear in the settlement agreement or order?
- Is the claim genuinely a residential disrepair claim?
- Is the damages outcome recorded?
- Is the Letter of Claim on file?
- Is there a clear chronology of notice and reports?
- Are expert invoices and reports available?
- Are photographs and repair records available?
- Are Part 36 offers included?
- Are fee earner grades correct?
- Are telephone calls properly described?
- Are disbursements supported?
- Is proportionality addressed?
- Is Precedent S required?
- Has N252 been prepared correctly?
- Is the matter suitable for negotiation or does it require CPR 46.14?
This checklist should be completed before the bill is served, not after Points of Dispute are received.
So, Are Housing Disrepair Costs Still Standard Basis in 2026?
In many cases, yes.
Housing disrepair costs can still be recoverable on the standard basis where the claim falls outside the relevant fixed recoverable costs regime and there is a proper entitlement to costs.
But claimant firms should not confuse “not fixed” with “easy to recover”. HDR costs in 2026 need careful drafting, clear chronology, correct rates, proper disbursement evidence and a strong proportionality narrative. Paying parties are challenging these bills aggressively, and weak bills invite reductions.
The firms that recover well are usually the firms that treat costs as part of the litigation strategy, not as an admin task at the end of the file.
How DMD Costs Can Help
DMD Costs works with claimant solicitor firms on housing disrepair costs from bill drafting through to negotiation and settlement. We can assist with:
- housing disrepair bills of costs;
- Precedent S electronic bills;
- N252 and detailed assessment preparation;
- Points of Dispute and Replies;
- CPR 46.14 costs-only proceedings;
- disbursement and surveyor fee disputes;
- hourly rate arguments;
- proportionality responses; and
- settlement-led costs negotiation.
If you have settled a housing disrepair claim and need the costs prepared, challenged or negotiated, send us the file and we will review the best route to recovery.