Points of Dispute in housing disrepair costs are often predictable. The paying party may change the wording from file to file, but the themes are usually the same: proportionality, hourly rates, surveyor fees, routine correspondence, telephone calls, duplication, counsel’s fees, vague entries and disbursements.

For claimant firms, the mistake is treating Points of Dispute as a formality. They are not.

Poor Replies can weaken a good bill. Generic Replies can make the receiving party look like they have not properly considered the objections. Overly aggressive Replies can make costs negotiation harder. No Replies at all can leave the paying party’s reductions unanswered. A strong response needs to be specific, commercial and grounded in the file.

This guide looks at the 12 most common reductions raised in housing disrepair Points of Dispute and how claimant firms should approach them.

Why Housing Disrepair Bills Are Heavily Challenged

Housing disrepair claims are often vulnerable to costs challenges because the damages may be modest compared with the work required. A file may involve damp, mould, water ingress, leaks, access issues, surveyor evidence, disclosure delays, repair disputes, Part 36 offers and a vulnerable tenant. But the paying party may still argue that the bill is disproportionate — an issue we cover in our guide to housing disrepair costs in 2026.

That is why the bill and Replies must tell the story of the claim. The paying party’s job is to reduce the bill. The receiving party’s job is to explain why the work was reasonably and proportionately incurred.

In our experience, the strongest reductions are rarely the ones based on a headline percentage. They are the points where the paying party can identify a specific weakness in the file, such as poor descriptions, duplicated work, an unexplained disbursement or senior time on routine tasks.

The firms that lose the most usually have perfectly genuine work on the file, but the Bill does not explain why it was required. By the time Points of Dispute arrive, the difficulty is then evidential rather than legal.

A good Reply should not try to defend everything. We would rather concede a weak £30 item and concentrate on the £500 or £1,000 argument that can actually be justified.

1. Proportionality

This is usually the main attack.

The paying party may say the bill is disproportionate to the damages recovered. In housing disrepair, this is common because the damages may be relatively low, while the work needed to progress the claim may be significant. A good Reply should not simply say: “The costs are proportionate.” That is too weak.

The Reply should explain why the work was necessary by reference to the actual file. That may include:

  • the nature of the defects;
  • damp and mould;
  • water ingress;
  • health or vulnerability issues;
  • children in the property;
  • landlord delay;
  • repair history;
  • expert evidence;
  • disclosure issues;
  • offers made;
  • conduct by the defendant;
  • the need to issue or threaten proceedings;
  • the settlement outcome.

Proportionality should be answered with context. If the defendant’s delay caused additional work, say so. If the expert report was needed because the landlord denied the defects, say so. If the client needed repeated advice due to ongoing living conditions, say so.

2. Hourly Rates

Paying parties regularly challenge hourly rates in HDR bills. They may argue that:

  • the wrong guideline rate has been used;
  • the wrong location band applies;
  • the fee earner grade is too high;
  • Grade A or Grade B work was unnecessary;
  • routine work should have been done by a junior fee earner;
  • the file did not justify the rates claimed.

The challenge that comes up most is that housing disrepair is low-value and routine, so a Grade A fee earner cannot have been necessary. The answer is not that the rate was reasonable — it is that value is not a proxy for complexity, and the two are assessed separately. We deal with that argument in full, including the delegation point, the CPR 44.3 proportionality factors and what changes when the rate claimed is above the guideline, in defending Grade A rates in housing disrepair claims.

The Reply should identify each fee earner properly. Where necessary, it should explain:

  • qualification;
  • years of experience;
  • role on the file;
  • grade claimed;
  • hourly rate claimed;
  • why that level of fee earner was appropriate.

If senior time is limited to review, advice, supervision or tactical decisions, the Reply should say that. If senior time was used for routine work, the bill may be vulnerable. That should be considered commercially before taking a hard position. (See our guide to the 2026 Guideline Hourly Rates.)

3. Surveyor Fees

Surveyor fees are one of the most common HDR disbursement disputes. Paying parties may argue that the report was unnecessary, too expensive, too wide in scope, or disproportionate to the damages. Those are three different objections, and they are answered separately: whether expert evidence was reasonably required at all, whether the instruction was wider than the case needed, and whether the amount charged is reasonable for the work done.

Protocol paragraph 7 both supports the instruction and limits it. Annex B tells the expert what to address — whether the defects exist, their cause, a schedule of works and the likely cost — which is why a surveyor is often central: a tenant reporting mould does not establish whether it is penetrating damp, rising damp or condensation, what works are needed, or what they cost. But paragraph 7.1(c) is explicit that an expert may be unnecessary where the only live issue is the level of damages, and photographs or video may be adequate.

Two provisions in CPR 35 frame the amount. CPR 35.1 restricts expert evidence to what is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings — not what was helpful or preferred — and CPR 35.4(4) lets the court cap the expert’s fees recoverable from the paying party. The fee is most defensible where the cause or scope of works was genuinely in issue, the landlord had not accepted the allegations, the instruction followed the Protocol (including on single joint instruction), the basis of charging was agreed at the outset, and any further questions under CPR 35.6 were proportionate, put once and for clarification only. It is vulnerable where no technical issue remained, the report duplicated evidence already available, or the invoice cannot be explained.

4. Telephone Calls With the Client

Housing disrepair files often involve regular client contact. The client may still be living with damp, mould, leaks or unsafe conditions. They may need to provide photographs, report repair updates, confirm access, discuss offers and give instructions. Paying parties often argue that calls are excessive. The answer depends on the quality of the entries.

A blanket reduction of every client call to six minutes can be too simplistic. PD 47 paragraph 5.14 defines routine communication by its simplicity and expressly distinguishes telephone calls which properly amount to attendances. The receiving party should separate genuinely routine calls from substantive advice or instructions and defend each accordingly.

Weak entries — “telephone call with client”, “update call”, “client attendance” — make that separation impossible and invite the blanket challenge. The dividing line PD 47 draws is simplicity, not the method of communication: a thirty-second call confirming access and a twenty-four minute call explaining an expert report, taking instructions on continuing defects and advising on a Part 36 offer both happen by telephone, but they are not the same costs item. The receiving party should record and describe each call so the substantive attendances can be defended and the genuinely routine ones conceded.

5. Routine Correspondence

Paying parties may argue that excessive letters and emails should be treated as routine unit communications. PD 47 draws a distinction between simple routine correspondence and letters or emails of substance, while paragraph 5.22 also permits actual recorded time for electronic communications properly amounting to attendances. The receiving party should identify which communications genuinely required substantive legal work and concede simple or repetitive traffic where appropriate.

PD 47 recognises three categories, not one: routine communications; letters and emails of substance; and electronic communications which properly amount to attendances, for which paragraph 5.22(2) allows an actual recorded-time charge in the court’s discretion. Paragraph 5.22(1) also settles a common dispute: the six-minute unit for a routine email out already includes perusing and considering the routine emails in, so those cannot be claimed again. The question is never whether the item was an email — it is what preparing the communication actually required.

6. Duplication

Duplication is another common attack. The paying party may argue that multiple fee earners reviewed the same document, attended to the same issue or duplicated work. The Reply should separate genuine duplication from proper supervision.

Supervision is not automatically unreasonable. Senior review may be appropriate where the file involves settlement advice, Part 36, costs entitlement, expert evidence or issue risk. The Reply should explain:

  • why a second review was needed;
  • whether the work was supervision;
  • whether the senior input was limited;
  • whether the matter required tactical input;
  • whether the file changed hands for a proper reason.

If there is actual duplication, it is usually better to deal with it commercially rather than defend the indefensible.

7. Counsel’s Fees

Counsel’s fees are not automatically excessive simply because the underlying claim is modest in value. Equally, instructing counsel does not make the paying party liable for the fee. The receiving party should identify why counsel was reasonably required, what work was undertaken and why the amount charged was reasonable and proportionate. PD 44 also permits the court to express an opinion on whether a hearing was fit for counsel.

The Court of Appeal put both halves in one sentence in Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS SCA v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1061 at [7]: counsel’s fees are not subject to guideline rates the way solicitors’ are, but only a reasonable and proportionate fee is recoverable from the other side, whatever the client agreed to pay. So a Grade A comparison is the wrong tariff, “no guideline” does not make the fee unchallengeable, and the indemnity the client owes counsel is a different question from inter partes recovery. A “fit for counsel” opinion under PD 44 paragraph 5.1 is a discretionary steer the assessing court has regard to, not a certificate that fixes the fee.

8. Expert Questions and Further Surveyor Involvement

This is a separate challenge from the original report fee at item 3. Here the question is not whether an expert was needed, but whether the later expert work was — further questions, addendum reports, reinspection or post-report correspondence. Once CPR 35.6 applies, written questions must be proportionate, put once only, within 28 days of the report and for clarification only. The Reply should ask:

  • why was further expert input needed?
  • did the defendant dispute the report?
  • did the landlord provide contrary evidence?
  • were repair proposals unclear?
  • did the expert need to address new defects?
  • did the report assist settlement?

Further expert work should be tied to the development of the claim. If it cannot be linked to a live issue, it becomes vulnerable.

9. Vague or Block-Billed Entries

Vague entries are easy targets. Examples include:

  • review file;
  • consider documents;
  • prepare correspondence;
  • work on matter;
  • attend to claim;
  • general review.

Paying parties use vague entries to argue that the work is unparticularised and should be reduced. Where the bill has already been served, the Reply may need to clarify the work by reference to the file. But the better approach is to avoid vague entries before service. Good descriptions should identify the purpose of the work. For example:

  • reviewing defendant’s disclosure and repair records;
  • considering surveyor report and remedial works;
  • reviewing Part 36 offer and advising on settlement;
  • preparing Letter of Claim based on damp and mould instructions;
  • reviewing landlord’s repair response and considering next steps.

Specific entries are harder to reduce.

10. Disbursements

Disbursements are often challenged where the paying party says they are unsupported, excessive or unnecessary. In housing disrepair claims, common disbursements include:

  • surveyor fees;
  • counsel’s fees;
  • court fees;
  • medical evidence where relevant;
  • photographs or inspection-related costs;
  • process server fees;
  • translation or interpretation where required.

The Reply should make sure each disbursement is supported by an invoice, report, order or explanation. The paying party should not be allowed to reduce a properly evidenced disbursement simply because it does not like the overall bill.

11. Work After Settlement Became Likely

Paying parties often argue that costs incurred after an offer was made were unnecessary. This can be a serious issue where the claimant delayed acceptance or continued work after the matter could reasonably have settled. However, in many HDR claims, further work is still needed after an offer is made. For example:

  • taking client instructions;
  • checking repair terms;
  • clarifying whether the offer is global;
  • checking costs wording;
  • reviewing Part 36 consequences;
  • advising on risks;
  • negotiating repairs;
  • finalising settlement;
  • confirming payment and costs entitlement.

The Reply should explain why the work was still required. A low or unclear offer does not automatically stop recoverable costs — a point closely linked to breach of settlement in housing disrepair claims.

12. Costs of Assessment and Negotiation

Paying parties may challenge the costs of preparing the bill, serving N252, reviewing Points of Dispute, preparing Replies and negotiating settlement. These costs can be recoverable where properly incurred, but they still need to be reasonable. The Reply should explain the assessment steps taken and why they were required. If the paying party served extensive Points of Dispute or made unrealistic offers, that may support the time claimed.

Those twelve are predictable, which is the useful thing about them. A bill drawn in the knowledge that each is coming is a different document from one drawn to record the work, and the difference is visible before a single Reply is written.

Housing disrepair costs drafting at DMD Costs is led by Mentor Nika, law costs draftsman and Head of Housing Disrepair Costs.

Ignoring Work Generated by Defendant Conduct

A challenge that cuts across most of the twelve above, and is rarely pleaded as one in its own right: a proportionality objection that compares costs against damages while leaving out the work the paying party itself generated.

CPR 44.3(5)(d) expressly includes additional work generated by the conduct of the paying party among the proportionality factors, and CPR 44.4 brings conduct in again when the court decides the amount. In housing disrepair the Pre-Action Protocol supplies dated benchmarks — a landlord response due within 20 working days, disclosure of the tenancy file and repair records — so a late response or missing records can be evidenced rather than asserted.

The limit is causation. Conduct does distinct work at three stages — CPR 44.2 (what costs order to make at all), CPR 44.3(5)(d) (whether the costs are proportionate given the work the paying party generated) and CPR 44.4 (how much to allow for the work actually done) — and they answer different questions, so they should not be collapsed into one. What a claimant has to establish is a chain: conduct, to additional work, to a reasonable response, to a reasonable cost. Delay does not make every subsequent attendance recoverable, and a conduct argument attached to repetitive chasers or to work that would have been required anyway weakens the items that deserved to be paid.

How to Approach Replies to Points of Dispute

Replies should be:

  • specific;
  • file-based;
  • proportionate;
  • commercial;
  • firm but not excessive.

They should not simply repeat generic wording. A good Reply should identify the issue, answer the objection and explain why the paying party’s proposed reduction is wrong or too severe. In some cases, the best Reply is short. In others, more detail is needed. The aim is not to argue every word. The aim is to protect the bill and move the matter towards settlement or assessment.

When Should Claimant Firms Negotiate?

Most housing disrepair costs disputes settle. The question is whether the offer is sensible. Before accepting or countering, consider:

  • the bill total;
  • the damages recovered;
  • disbursements;
  • VAT;
  • likely assessment risk;
  • proportionality;
  • hourly rates;
  • strength of the surveyor fee;
  • quality of the time entries;
  • defendant conduct;
  • Part 36 risk;
  • costs of assessment;
  • client cashflow;
  • whether CPR 46.14 costs-only proceedings or further steps are required.

A quick settlement may be sensible if the offer is commercial. But a low offer should not be accepted simply because the paying party has raised generic PoDs.

Documents DMD Costs Would Need

To review HDR Points of Dispute properly, we would usually need:

  • the bill of costs;
  • electronic bill if applicable;
  • Notice of Commencement;
  • Points of Dispute;
  • any offer correspondence;
  • settlement agreement or order;
  • Part 36 offers;
  • expert report;
  • surveyor invoice;
  • disbursement invoices;
  • damages outcome;
  • fee earner details;
  • key correspondence;
  • any breach or repair-term evidence.

The more complete the file, the stronger the Reply and negotiation strategy.

Practical Checklist Before Replying to HDR PoDs

Before serving Replies, check:

  • Were the PoDs served in time? They are due 21 days after service of the notice of commencement (CPR 47.9(2)). If none arrived, request a default costs certificate with our free N254 builder before any late PoDs arrive, because a certificate cannot issue once they are served (CPR 47.9(5)). If they arrived late, the paying party cannot be heard further without the court’s permission (CPR 47.9(3)).
  • Are the PoDs generic or file-specific?
  • Has proportionality been properly answered?
  • Are hourly rates and grades evidenced?
  • Are surveyor fees supported?
  • Are telephone entries defensible?
  • Is defendant delay explained?
  • Are disbursement invoices available?
  • Are counsel’s fees justified?
  • Are vague entries clarified where possible?
  • Is there a realistic settlement range?
  • Is a Part 36 offer appropriate?
  • Is the file heading towards assessment or settlement?

This checklist should be completed before Replies are finalised. Replies, if you serve them, are due within 21 days after service of the Points of Dispute (CPR 47.13), and our deadline calculator gives the date.

How DMD Costs Can Help

DMD Costs helps claimant solicitor firms deal with housing disrepair Points of Dispute. We can assist with:

  • reviewing Points of Dispute;
  • preparing Replies;
  • advising on low offers;
  • reviewing proportionality risk;
  • defending hourly rates;
  • dealing with surveyor fee disputes;
  • responding to disbursement challenges;
  • negotiating settlement;
  • preparing for detailed assessment;
  • reviewing whether further steps are needed.

Most of these reductions are decided before the Points of Dispute arrive. How the bills and e-Bills present the work — phase coding, narrative, the evidence behind each disbursement — determines how much of it there is to attack.

On clinical negligence files the challenges run differently, with expert fees and budgets at the centre: see clinical negligence Points of Dispute and detailed assessment.

If you have received PoDs on a housing disrepair bill, send us the bill, PoDs and latest offer. We will review the position and help progress the matter commercially.

Sources