A tenant raising allegations of disrepair does not necessarily mean that a rent arrears possession hearing has to be adjourned. Sometimes, the numbers tell the story.
For as far back as I can remember, I do not think I had ever previously been instructed to attend a hearing at Nottingham County Court.
I have kept a spreadsheet recording the hearings I have attended over the years, and Nottingham County Court did not feature on it.
That changed on 14 August 2026.
More importantly, the hearing provided a useful example of why, when a tenant raises a potential defence or counterclaim, it is important to consider whether that issue could actually affect the outcome of the possession claim.
Approximately £12,000 in rent arrears
At the date of the hearing, the tenant was approximately £12,000 in rent arrears, representing around 14 months’ rent.
When the possession notice was served, the arrears were already approximately nine months.
The tenants attended court and raised a number of allegations concerning disrepair. There was quite a substantial list of alleged problems.
However, their oral submissions were that, at the highest, they had suffered approximately four months of inconvenience as a result of the alleged disrepair.
That was an important distinction.
What difference could the disrepair claim actually make?
When a tenant raises disrepair in a possession claim based upon rent arrears, it is important to consider what financial value that potential claim could realistically have.
The mere existence of a disrepair allegation does not automatically mean that a possession hearing must be adjourned.
The relevant question is whether the potential claim could actually affect the arrears to such an extent that it could change the outcome of the possession proceedings.
In this case, I submitted that even if the tenants’ case was taken at its highest, and even if they were awarded compensation equivalent to 100% of the rent for the entire four-month period of alleged inconvenience, the arrears would still remain substantially above the relevant threshold.
In simple terms, even on that extremely generous hypothetical calculation:
14 months’ arrears − 4 months’ potential compensation = approximately 10 months’ arrears.
That was still nowhere near the threshold required for the mandatory rent arrears ground.
The significance of the rent arrears threshold
This was particularly important because of the level of arrears involved.
Under the previous possession regime, the mandatory rent arrears ground for a monthly tenancy generally required at least two months’ rent to be outstanding at the relevant stages.
The position has now changed following the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.
Since 1 May 2026, the amended mandatory Ground 8 requires a monthly tenant to have at least three months’ rent arrears both when the possession notice is served and at the date of the hearing.
In this case, however, the potential disrepair claim could not realistically come close to reducing the arrears to either threshold.
The arrears were approximately £12,000.
The tenants themselves put the alleged period of inconvenience at around four months.
Even assuming a hypothetical claim equivalent to 100% of the rent for that entire period, there would still have been approximately ten months of rent outstanding.
The hearing was not adjourned
One of the practical consequences of tenants raising disrepair allegations in rent arrears cases is that landlords can sometimes find themselves facing an adjournment while the alleged disrepair is investigated or quantified.
That did not happen in this case.
The submission I made was, essentially, that even giving the tenants the benefit of the most favourable possible assessment of their alleged disrepair claim, the arrears would still remain far above the threshold required for mandatory possession.
There was therefore no realistic prospect of the alleged counterclaim reducing the arrears sufficiently to defeat the possession claim.
The judge accepted the position and made a possession order on the basis of rent arrears.
Why the calculation mattered
The case demonstrates an important point.
There is a significant difference between:
“The tenant has raised a disrepair claim.”
and:
“The tenant has raised a disrepair claim which, if successful, would reduce the arrears below the threshold required for possession.”
Those are two very different propositions.
Where a tenant raises disrepair, it is therefore important to consider the potential value of the claim rather than simply its existence.
Questions to consider include:
- How long is the alleged disrepair said to have lasted?
- What level of compensation could realistically be awarded?
- What is the maximum possible value of the tenant’s potential counterclaim?
- What would the rent arrears be after allowing for that potential claim?
- Would the remaining arrears still satisfy the relevant possession ground?
In this case, the answer to those questions was clear.
Even assuming an exceptionally favourable outcome for the tenants, the arrears remained comfortably above the relevant threshold.
Preparation and advocacy matter
Possession hearings can sometimes become complicated when tenants raise allegations of disrepair, unlawful deductions, breach of contract or other potential counterclaims.
But the existence of another issue does not necessarily mean that the possession claim cannot proceed.
The court has to consider the evidence and the legal test applicable to the possession ground relied upon.
Where the figures demonstrate that a potential counterclaim could not possibly reduce the arrears below the relevant threshold, that can be a significant submission.
The 14 August 2026 hearing was a good example of the importance of looking at the practical effect of a defence rather than simply its existence.
A new court on the spreadsheet
There was also a small personal milestone from the hearing.
After keeping a record of my court hearings for several years, Nottingham County Court has now made its first appearance on my spreadsheet.
And it came with a successful outcome for the landlord.
Approximately £12,000 in rent arrears.
Approximately nine months’ arrears when the notice was served.
Approximately 14 months’ arrears by the date of the hearing.
A substantial list of alleged disrepair issues.
Approximately four months of alleged inconvenience, according to the tenants’ own submissions.
And, ultimately, a possession order.
The important lesson is not that disrepair allegations should be ignored. They should not.
The lesson is that they need to be properly assessed.
A tenant may have a potential claim.
But the real question in a rent arrears possession hearing can be:
Even if that claim succeeds, will it actually change the outcome?
In this case, the answer was no.
Need assistance with a possession hearing?
At White Collar Legal, we assist landlords and letting agents with possession proceedings and court advocacy.
If a tenant has raised disrepair or another potential defence to a rent arrears possession claim, proper preparation can be critical.
The important question is not simply what has been alleged. It is whether the allegation can actually change the outcome.
This article is based on a court hearing on 14 August 2026. Identifying details have been omitted or altered where appropriate. It is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The law and procedural requirements can change, and individual cases depend upon their particular facts.
The author of this post is Philip Nam, Director of White Collar Legal. Philip is NOT a Solicitor, Barrister, Legal Executive and is NOT authorised to conduct litigation or exercise a right of audience under the Legal Services Act 2007. Philip attended the hearing under the instructions and supervision of an authorised person.
You can contact Philip Nam on 07943 163 877 or philip@whitecollarlegalandadmin.com. You can also contact our office on 0151 230 8931