Acting as an expert in housing conditions claims – the future

Housing conditions claims have been pursued against social housing providers for as long as there have been social housing providers. However, the volume of claims being brought has increased exponentially over the last decade. This is proving to be a lucrative area of work for many claimant firms, particularly those already working in other volume litigation areas such as personal injury and travel claims. 

A critical element to a claim is expert evidence. Without defects falling within the landlord’s repairing obligations there cannot be a claim. As a result, there has been a boom in the number of surveyors offering their services as expert witnesses, capable of preparing independent reports which comply with Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). However, the reports relied upon by claimants in support of their claims are not always satisfactory for a variety of reasons, including lack of detail regarding defects, no explanation as to causes, and unnecessary and costly remedial works. 

Although it used to be fairly routine for experts to be called to attend trial to be cross examined on their written reports that is much less common today. As such, there is less opportunity to challenge an expert’s findings other than by way of Part 35 questions or, if the facts justify, by applying to court to prevent a claimant from relying on their expert’s report. 

Social housing providers therefore need to be aware of what to consider when instructing their own independent expert witnesses, and when considering the reports provided by claimants in housing conditions claims. In that regard, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors’ (RICS) recent Practice Alert in April 2025 (Alert) acts as a useful starting point. 

The Alert sets out the standards expected of expert witnesses, particularly when dealing with high volume work such as housing conditions claims. It addresses the growing concerns about the quality and independence of expert reports, many of which fall short of professional standards. The Alert raises key concerns around the impartiality of expert reports, the increasing reliance on generic or pre-populated content, and potential financial conflicts of interest. 

If a landlord wishes to challenge an expert’s report there are a number of matters to have regard to. 

Originality and authorship

RICS standard: reports must be the expert’s own work, based on an independent inspection, and must not rely on generic or pre-populated templates. 

Practical advice:

• check reports for signs of template-based findings, such as repeated wording across multiple cases or vague descriptions not specific to a particular property
• if a report lacks evidence of an in-person inspection or site-specific analysis, request clarification and/or raise this with the court if the report is sought to be relied upon in proceedings
• confirm that the report has been written by the same person who carried out the inspection
• look for inconsistencies between the report’s findings and any photographs. Stock or duplicated images across unrelated claims may show that an original inspection has not been undertaken
• examine reports for specific identifiable features such as ‘black mould to the top right-hand corner of the external wall in the kitchen’, as opposed to generalised statements like ‘mould throughout the property.’
• be cautious of ‘copy and paste’ defects where the same repair schedules appear in multiple reports with no reference to property specifics such as layout, tenancy details, or building age
• ask whether supporting data such as moisture meter readings, thermal images, or photographic logs are included and attributed to the inspection date.

Accuracy and verifiability

RICS standard: only those with appropriate expertise and RICS accreditation may produce reports using the RICS name. Reports must include accurate qualifications and a signed statement of truth. 

Practical Advice:

• Check whether the expert is RICS accredited and has relevant up-to-date qualifications:
  • Search the official RICS member checker to confirm certification.
  • Look for a RICS membership number and badge.
  • Identify designations such as AssocRICS (Associate), MRICS (Member), or FRICS (Fellow).
• Review the expert’s experience to ensure their qualifications and specialisms are appropriate for the type of property and the nature of the alleged defects reported. Different issues, such as damp, structural movement, building age, or construction type, may require different surveying expertise.
• Check whether the expert has a history of disciplinary findings or RICS complaints by searching the RICS disciplinary database.  
• Question whether the expert’s experience or accreditations appear inflated or irrelevant. For example, claiming expertise in multiple unrelated disciplines.
• If a report does not include a signed statement of truth, confirming that the expert is aware of and adheres to their duty under Civil Procedure Rule 35 (Part 35 CPR), this should be brought to the court’s attention for a potential regulatory breach. 

Disclosure of conflicts

RICS standard: any financial dependency or potential conflict of interest, including frequent instructions from the same client, must be disclosed. Success based or conditional fee arrangements are not permitted. 

Practical advice: 

• be alert to patterns such as:
  • the same expert receiving repeated instructions from the same firm or claims management company
  • estimates that consistently sit just above the £1,000 threshold for fast-track eligibility
  • reports that recommend disproportionate or unnecessary remedial works regardless of the nature or severity of the defects
• request disclosure of the expert's instruction history where concerns arise. If the expert fails to provide this transparency they may be in breach of their duty under Part 35 CPR
• ask whether the expert is retained under a block agreement, informal arrangement, or referral network that could compromise independence
• raise any concerns with the court early, ideally in directions or at a CMC, where you can request that the expert’s evidence be limited or excluded if impartiality is in doubt.

Duty to the court

RICS standard: an RICS expert’s primary duty is to the court, not the instructing party. Their opinions must be independent, honest, and free from external influence. 

Practical advice:

• look for reports that seem biased towards the claimant or instructing party instead of offering a balanced, impartial analysis
• identify the use of emotionally charged or accusatory language such as 'clearly negligent’ or ‘serious failings’, or statements that draw legal conclusions, as these are not within an expert's remit
• flag unsupported conclusions that are not backed by photographs, measurements, or a clear diagnostic rationale. For example, claims of ‘severe damp’ without moisture readings or a traceable source
• challenge one-sided assumptions regarding liability, causation, or tenant behaviour that are presented as fact, but are not tested against alternative explanations or evidence
• if appropriate, ask the court to limit or disregard the report’s evidential weight where it appears the expert has failed in their overriding duty under Part 35 CPR
• apply for permission to cross-examine an expert where there is suspicion of bias, overreach, or lack of independence. 

The wider impact of inadequate expert reports 

Expert evidence that lacks quality or is biased not only causes difficulties in the context of litigation, but results in financial and operational challenges. Reports that overestimate the cost or degree of remedial work can result in disproportionate settlements, escalated legal expenses, and unnecessary work orders. 

This leads to a general decline in trust towards expert evidence and adds pressure on housing providers who must divert already limited budgets to defend or settle inflated claims. These are funds that could otherwise be invested in genuine maintenance, tenant support services, or improvements to housing stock.

The RICS makes it clear that these practices are simply unacceptable and highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of expert evidence to ensure that disputes remain fair, proportionate, and sustainable. 

Action

Where a landlord considers that the independent expert evidence they seek to rely on falls short of RICS standards, the same should not be relied upon and any defects with the report should be remedied or another expert sourced.

Where a claimant’s expert’s report falls short the landlord may, if the facts warrant it, report the matter to the RICS and seek an order from the court that the claimant is prevented from relying on that report in the proceedings.