CPR 35 Reports in Housing Disrepair: Purpose, Problems, and Practical Perspective
- Rectory Surveyors
- Jan 12
- 5 min read
CPR 35 Reports in Housing Disrepair: Purpose, Problems, and Practical Perspective
In housing disrepair litigation, CPR Part 35 expert reports are frequently misunderstood and, in some cases, deliberately mischaracterised. Where an independent surveyor has produced a comprehensive and properly reasoned report identifying defects, causation, remedial works and reasonable costs, it is not uncommon for defendants to reject the findings outright. Rather than engaging with the substance of the evidence, some defendants instead seek to challenge the integrity of the surveyor or undermine the report through allegations of bias or exaggeration that are unsupported by evidence.
This approach is both procedurally flawed and practically counterproductive. A CPR 35 housing disrepair report exists to assist the court, but it also provides defendants with a clear and structured opportunity to understand the condition of their property and the steps required to return it to proper repair. In the long term, constructive engagement with expert evidence is almost always to the defendant’s benefit.
The legal and procedural purpose of CPR 35
CPR Part 35 governs the use of expert evidence in civil proceedings and is underpinned by a single, critical principle: the expert’s overriding duty is to the court. CPR 35.3 makes clear that an expert must provide independent assistance by way of objective, unbiased opinion, and that this duty overrides any obligation to the party instructing them.
In housing disrepair claims, the role of the expert surveyor is well established. The expert is asked to identify and record defects, consider likely causation, comment on whether the defects arise from a breach of repairing obligations, and set out the remedial works and reasonable costs required to place the property back into proper repair. A compliant CPR 35 report will be structured, transparent and supported by professional reasoning, inspection findings and, where appropriate, reference to recognised standards.
Such reports are not advocacy documents. They are evidential tools designed to assist the court in determining disputed technical issues that fall outside ordinary judicial knowledge.
Full identification of defects is a professional obligation
Defendants sometimes characterise detailed schedules of defects and associated costs as excessive or adversarial. This perception is misplaced. A surveyor preparing a CPR 35 housing disrepair report is professionally obliged to provide a full and accurate account of the condition of the property as observed at inspection.
Failure to identify defects, minimisation of their severity, or the provision of artificially low costings would undermine the reliability of the report and risk misleading the court. Thoroughness is therefore not only appropriate but essential. A complete schedule of defects provides clarity as to what is wrong, why it is wrong, and what work is reasonably required to remedy the issues.
It is also important to recognise that the identification of defects does not amount to a finding of legal liability. Surveyors do not determine breach, causation in law, or responsibility for delay. Those matters remain firmly within the remit of the court. The expert’s task is confined to providing professional opinion on physical condition and remedial requirements.
Attacking the expert rather than the evidence
Despite the safeguards within CPR 35, it remains common for defendants to respond to unfavourable expert evidence by attacking the surveyor personally or alleging systemic bias. Assertions that an expert is a “claimant’s surveyor” or that a report has been prepared to inflate a claim are frequently advanced without any supporting material.
Such allegations overlook the stringent requirements imposed on experts. CPR 35 reports must include details of the expert’s qualifications and experience, confirmation of understanding of the overriding duty to the court, and a statement of truth. Experts are subject to professional regulation and potential sanction should they act improperly. Disagreement with conclusions does not, of itself, evidence bias or incompetence.
Where a defendant considers that a report is technically flawed, the Civil Procedure Rules provide clear mechanisms for addressing this. These include raising written questions under CPR 35.6, seeking clarification or amendment, participating in expert discussions, or, where permitted, relying on properly reasoned alternative expert evidence. Unsupported personal criticism is unlikely to assist the court and often damages the credibility of the party advancing it.
Practical benefits for defendants and landlords
From a practitioner’s perspective, CPR 35 housing disrepair reports often represent an underutilised resource for defendants. A well-prepared report provides a detailed condition survey and a prioritised schedule of works that can be used to inform repair programmes and asset management decisions.
Engaging constructively with expert findings can reduce the risk of repeat disrepair claims, limit exposure to ongoing damages, and improve compliance with repairing obligations. Addressing root causes rather than temporary fixes can result in more durable outcomes and long-term cost savings. For social landlords and managing agents in particular, expert reports can assist in identifying systemic issues within housing stock.
Courts also expect parties to engage reasonably with expert evidence. A defendant who demonstrates a willingness to understand and act upon a CPR 35 report is more likely to be viewed as acting proportionately and in accordance with the overriding objective. This can have a direct impact on costs, case management directions and settlement outcomes.
Disagreement, non-acceptance and reasoned response
Professional disagreement between experts is not unusual in housing disrepair litigation. Issues such as causation, scope of works and reasonableness of costs can legitimately attract differing opinions. However, disagreement must be supported by evidence and professional reasoning.
A distinction must be drawn between reasoned disagreement and wholesale non-acceptance. Simply asserting that defects are overstated or that works are unnecessary, without technical explanation, does not advance the dispute. Courts are adept at identifying when criticism of an expert report is substantive and when it is tactical.
Constructive engagement with CPR 35 evidence, including narrowing issues and identifying areas of agreement, is consistent with both procedural expectations and good litigation practice.
A more constructive approach to expert evidence
There is increasing emphasis within civil litigation on cooperation and proportionality. CPR 35 encourages transparency and issue-narrowing through mechanisms such as joint experts, expert meetings and schedules of agreement and disagreement. These tools are designed to focus disputes on genuine points of contention rather than personalising expert evidence.
When defendants approach CPR 35 housing disrepair reports as practical guides rather than threats, disputes are more likely to resolve efficiently. The focus shifts away from blame and towards remediation, which aligns with the underlying purpose of housing disrepair law: ensuring that residential properties are safe, habitable and properly maintained.
Conclusion
A CPR 35 housing disrepair report is an independent assessment prepared for the assistance of the court. It is not an attack on a landlord and not an advocacy document for a claimant. Where a surveyor has provided a full, reasoned account of defects and appropriate remedial costs, the appropriate response is careful analysis and constructive engagement.
Baseless attacks on experts increase costs, prolong litigation and delay essential repairs. By contrast, a measured and professional understanding of CPR 35 reports enables defendants to restore properties to good order, manage risk effectively and achieve outcomes that are beneficial to all parties in the long term.
RELATED
Rectory Surveyors are experts in building and surveying, friendly and experienced, with a high degree of professionalism for all your surveying requirements. Learn more >
T: 020 7249 4954
E: info@rectorysurveyors.co.uk
