Our client, a sole practitioner specialising in housing disrepair claims, instructed Greener Costs following the successful settlement of a disrepair claim against a local authority landlord.

The tenant had lived for years with significant disrepair issues, including penetrating damp, mould growth, and defective heating. Despite repeated complaints, the landlord failed to carry out the repairs, resulting in serious health and safety concerns for the tenant and their family.

The matter was handled from start to finish by a Grade A solicitor, with over ten years’ post-qualification experience in housing disrepair and personal injury work. The solicitor’s role included advising the client, issuing proceedings, liaising with experts, and preparing the case for trial.

However, upon submission of the Bill of Costs, the defendant’s costs negotiator argued that only Grade D rates should be allowed, suggesting that the matter was “routine” and did not require a qualified solicitor.

This position was not only factually inaccurate but also legally flawed. It effectively implied that the claimant’s firm should have allowed an unqualified individual to conduct litigation, an activity that, under the Legal Services Act 2007, would constitute a criminal offence.

Applying the Mazur Rulings – Clarifying Who May Conduct

In our representations, Greener Costs drew on the principles from the Mazur rulings to demonstrate that the defendant’s approach was both unreasonable and contrary to regulatory law.

The Mazur decisions have clarified that the determination of fee earner grades must reflect the actual conduct and complexity of the litigation, not arbitrary assumptions about claim type. Crucially, the rulings also highlight the importance of compliance with professional regulation when considering who is entitled to carry out such work.

We applied these principles in practice by arguing that:

• Conducting litigation – Including issuing proceedings, signing statements of case, corresponding with the court, and advising clients- is a reserved legal activity. It cannot lawfully be carried out by a Grade D fee (unqualified) fee earner.
• Therefore, suggesting that a Grade D rate should apply effectively amounts to suggesting that the solicitor should have committed a criminal offence by delegating litigation tasks to an unqualified individual.
• The claimant’s solicitor had properly conducted the litigation within the bounds of regulation, ensuring that all procedural and evidential matters were handled at the appropriate professional level.
• The Mazur rulings support the position that where a qualified solicitor conducts litigation personally, Grade A rates are justified, particularly where the matter involves significant evidential and procedural complexity.

Resisting the Defendant’s Position

The defendant’s Points of Dispute were striking in that they openly admitted to not instructing a solicitor on their own side and boasted that their matter settled just seven days prior to trial without any solicitor involvement. They used this as justification for why the claimant’s rates should be limited to Grade D.

We argued that this reasoning was wholly misconceived. The defendant’s internal decision to proceed without a qualified solicitor did not set the standard of reasonableness for the claimant’s conduct. If anything, it underlined a concerning trend: a lack of understanding of what “conducting litigation” legally entails.

Greener Costs emphasised that:

• It is not open to the defendant to suggest that unqualified staff could have lawfully conducted this claim.
• Such an approach would not only breach the Legal Services Act but would undermine the standards of professional regulation designed to protect clients and the public.
• The claimant’s solicitor acted entirely properly, ensuring compliance with all regulatory requirements and procedural obligations, something that cannot lawfully be done by a Grade D fee earner.

By grounding our argument in both legal authority (Mazur) and regulatory compliance we demonstrated that the defendant’s stance was not merely a costs argument but an improper suggestion that the claimant should have committed an offence to reduce costs.

Why Instruct Greener Costs

At Greener Costs, we specialise in defending the true value of claimant solicitors’ work across housing disrepair, personal injury, and complex litigation. We understand that defendants are increasingly attempting to downgrade costs, often without recognising the regulatory framework governing who may lawfully conduct litigation.

Our approach combines detailed legal analysis with practical strategy, ensuring that every argument is compliant, persuasive, and rooted in the latest case law. Whether your case involves private landlords, local authorities, or sensitive disrepair issues affecting health and safety, our team ensures that the work of qualified solicitors is valued correctly and defended effectively.

If your firm is facing challenges to your fee earner grades or unfair reductions based on improper comparisons, contact Greener Costs today at info@greenercosts.co.uk. We’ll ensure your costs are recovered lawfully, proportionately, and within the full protection of the laws.