In the realm of housing conditions disputes, expert evidence plays a pivotal role. This type of evidence is fundamentally opinion-based, yet its credibility significantly increases when backed by thorough testing, intrusive investigations, and solid evidence.

The Value of Grounded Opinions

Reflecting on my experiences, I recall a joint inspection with an opposing expert who confidently stated, “I like doing these; I can basically say whatever I like. I may be criticised by a judge if it goes to court, but that’s it.” This sentiment has profoundly influenced my approach, reinforcing my commitment to ensuring that every opinion I present is well-supported by the best available evidence and testing methods.

Historically, expert witnesses enjoyed immunity from negligence claims, a privilege that lasted until 2011. In a landmark decision, the United Kingdom Supreme Court abolished this immunity, allowing for claims against experts for negligence in court testimony and report preparation. This shift underscores the increasing accountability experts now face in their roles.

Common Pitfalls in Expert Reports

Despite these changes, I encounter numerous expert reports each year in housing conditions claims that reflect a lack of understanding of the expert's role. Many experts fail to grasp the landlord’s statutory repairing obligations, often forming conclusions that align with the interests of their instructing party without adequately considering alternative explanations for the defects at hand. This tendency not only undermines the integrity of their opinions but also raises ethical concerns about the motivations behind their findings.

Furthermore, the pressure on experts in certain sectors, such as medical agencies, to produce favorable outcomes can lead to a culture where opinions are skewed, echoing the earlier sentiment of “saying what they like” without concern for accountability.

Utilising Part 35 Questions

In situations where an expert’s opinion lacks robust support, or fails to consider all potential causes of a defect, the use of Part 35 questions becomes invaluable. These inquiries can reveal the weaknesses in an expert's stance and hold them accountable for their assertions. For example:

1. Where is your evidence that supports your opinion about ‘X’?

2. What other causes of ‘X’ did you consider before forming your opinion?

3. Why do you assert that the landlord has a repairing obligation regarding ‘Y’ under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, when it is widely accepted that ‘Y’ does not constitute part of the structure or exterior of the dwelling under this section?

These questions serve as a powerful tool for challenging the expert’s credibility. Often, simply posing these inquiries can lead to the withdrawal of claims. Frequently, the expert struggles to provide satisfactory answers without inadvertently acknowledging their failure to fulfill their primary duty to the court. In many cases, the absence of a response speaks volumes about the validity of their position.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the implementation of Part 35 questions can significantly impact the outcomes of housing condition disputes. By ensuring that expert opinions are well-supported and thoroughly considered, we can uphold the integrity of expert testimony and, ultimately, the justice system itself. The responsibility lies with both legal professionals and experts to maintain high standards in their practices, ensuring that the opinions presented are not only credible but also justly reflective of the facts at hand