The case of Matthews v Nottingham City Council [2025] provides valuable guidance on the proper approach to track allocation in housing disrepair cases and highlights the importance of following established procedural frameworks.
The Claimant, Kathleen Matthews, brought a housing disrepair claim for damages and specific performance against the Defendant landlord, Nottingham City Council. The Claimant alleged breaches of the implied covenants under sections 11 (repairing obligations) and 9A (fitness for human habitation) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The claim was for damages exceeding £1,000 but limited to £3,000, with specific performance for disrepair worth over £1,000. Ms Matthews' expert estimated repair costs at £1,683.60 inclusive of VAT, whilst the Council's expert assessed costs at £1,676.21 inclusive of VAT.
The central procedural issue was whether the claim should be allocated to the small claims track or the fast track—a critical distinction affecting costs recovery. Simply put, the Claimant would be limited to fixed costs if the claim was allocated to the small claims track which are capped at a maximum sum of £260 plus an amount of £750 towards the costs of an expert.
Deputy District Judge (DDJ) Griffiths found the claim "very much on the cusp or marginally above the £1,000 mark", valuing repairs on the defendant's case at "probably £1,200 plus VAT" and damages at £855.80 based on a 10% rent reduction. Exercising discretion and based on CPR 1.1 (the overriding objective to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost) and CPR 26.13 (matters relevant to track allocation), the judge concluded financial value was not the sole determining factor and allocated the matter to the small claims track.
Ms Matthews appealed and the case went before His Honour Judge (HHJ) Jonathan Owen, who found the DDJ's decision was wrong, holding that the judge erred in principle by failing to follow the correct structured approach. The judge should have first assessed the realistic value of the case and categorised the normal track, then analysed factors under Rule 26.13 to determine whether to displace that starting point.
The judge held that the normal track for this claim was the fast track, because there was a potentially valid claim for specific performance and the realistic value of repair costs exceeded £1,000. The judge also found it wrong to assess damages at less than £1,000 based on a 10% rent reduction, as there was a range of possible percentage reductions that could justify an award exceeding £1,000. In the case of Birmingham City Council v Lee, the court held that the tenant could recover their costs up until the repairs were completed, as the claim had only become suitable for the small claims track (as opposed to the fast track) because the landlord carried out the repairs at the pre-action stage. When the claim was made, the costs of repairs and damages would have exceeded £1,000.
Applying Birmingham City Council v Lee and the Pre-action Protocol for housing disrepair, the judge held that where a claim is justifiable and the normal track is the fast track, it would be unjustifiable to allocate it to the small claims track and thereby remove the potential for costs recovery contemplated by the Protocol.
Whilst acknowledging the claim was not particularly complex, involved only two parties, and required limited oral evidence, the judge held these factors did not point towards small claims track allocation when the normal track was the fast track.
The appeal was allowed, the DDJ's order was set aside, and the matter was reallocated for case management.
The case serves as a reminder that procedural shortcuts in housing disrepair claims can prove costly, and that courts must rigorously apply the structured allocation framework rather than succumb to treating borderline cases as "simple" matters suitable for the small claims track.
