We were instructed at the end of April 2021 by Mrs E from East London who had been experiencing ongoing disrepair within her leasehold flat since December 2018. We took her case on under a ’No Win No Fee’ agreement.
At the end of 2018 our client noticed that the bathroom walls were constantly wet and a large damp patch had started to appear on her bedroom ceiling. Our client inspected the guttering from the ground floor level and could clearly see that the gutters were damaged and visibly blocked with moss and dirt, this was reported to the council who owned the freehold of the building, however our client had no response to her repeated calls and emails.
In March 2021 without giving our client any prior notification the council erected scaffolding at the front of the building however norepairs to the gutters and drainage pipes took place and the damp within her property continued which quickly led to black mould on the bathroom walls and bedroom ceiling.
We sent a detailed letter of claim to the council setting out that they were in breach of express and implied terms of tenancy and/or breach of their statutory and common law duties by not adhering to the clauses outlined in the leasehold tenancy regarding the council’s responsibility for the maintenance and repairs of the building and we instructed an expert surveyor to assess the disrepair.
Our nominated surveyor reported that some of the main issues were but not limited to severely blocked and damaged guttering and drainage pipes plus an Ingress of rainwater from a defective verge to gable wall.
Some weeks later we received an acknowledgement of the letter of claim from the councils’ solicitors, however they denied that the council were responsible for the maintenance of the building as they claimed that the freehold had been sub let. However, no information detailing this ‘sub let’ was forth coming and all evidence pointed toward the council both owning and being responsible for the freehold. We gathered all evidence including contacting The Land Registry who provided us with the supporting documents which out lined the council’s ownership and responsibility for the freehold.
We sent all evidence and proof of the freehold ownership to the councils’ solicitors who subsequently ignored all of our emails and paper correspondence. After giving them sufficient time to respond to our letter of claim we issued court proceedings.
As the hearing date drew closer we were notified that the council had instructed a new solicitor who contacted us and conceded that the council did hold responsibility for the freehold. They put forth a part 36 offer to settle out of court. Our client lived in a high rent area and the offer they made was substantially lower than our valuation therefore we rejected their offer and made a counteroffer to settle of £10.780.00 in damages, all repairs to be completed within 90 days plus all legal costs recovered from the other side. This offer was accepted by the council and the damages were received by our client within 28 days.
Our client up until the point of instruction had lived with damp, mould and moss growth for over three years which had a negative impact on both her physical and mental well being and whilst getting her home back to the state it was always meant to be in was the priority the compensation that our client received came a close second.
For more information on how compensation is generally calculated, read our article on this subject: https://www.mjvlaw.co.uk/legal-news/housing-disrepair-compensation/
by Jane Willacey
We were instructed at the start of May 2021 by Mrs W from Cirencester who had been experiencing ongoing disrepair within her council house since July 2018. We took her case on under a ’No Win No Fee’ agreement.
Our client moved into her two-bed council property in July 2018, at the time our client noticed that the kitchen units were damaged with large chunks missing from the worktops, loose hinges and ill-fitting doors and drawers. Our client contacted the council who sent a contractor to inspect her kitchen, they informed our client that a new kitchen would be fitted by March 2019 therefore our client accepted this and didn’t report this issue further until April 2019 when no news of a new kitchen was forthcoming.
In the winter of 2018 our client noticed that the windows throughout her property were very draughty, the seals had blown and the handles and locks were rusty which caused the property to become very cold and damp. Our client informed the council who sent a contractor to the property. The contractor lubricated the locks and informed our client that all the windows needed replacing and that he would notify the council however our client received no contact from the council and no reply to her weekly emails chasing replacements.
In November 2019 our client reported crumbling plaster work, exposed brick work and damp on the walls of her second bedroom plus mould and damp in the kitchen, main bathroom and downstairs w/c. Our client reported this to the council along with the numerous reports regarding the windows and kitchen disrepair but she received neither an acknowledgement nor a reply.
We sent a detailed letter of claim to the council setting out that they were in breach of express and implied terms of tenancy and/or breach of their statutory and common law duties by not adhering to the clauses outlined in the tenancy regarding the council’s responsibility for the maintenance and repairs of the building.
The councils’ solicitors acknowledged our letter of claim and a joint inspection between both parties nominated expert surveyors was arranged. The surveyors reported that some of the main issues were but not limited to:
Low level damp and mould found in various areas throughout the property which had caused damage to ceilings, plaster work, floors and walls.
Blown window seals and window fittings which were in a state of disrepair causing cold air and damp to leach into the property.
The kitchen cupboards were saturated with damp which had caused the units to swell.
Higher than average damp meter readings in the kitchen, downstairs w/c and at the rear of the property.
Defective renderingand guttering which were both contributing to the damp.
A small area of penetrative rising damp to the rear of the property.
As both surveyors agreed on the level of disrepair we made a part 36 offer to theother party to settle without the need to issue court proceedings, our first offer was rejected however the other party accepted a subsequent offer of £2000.00 in damages with repairs to be completed within 70 days plus all our clients legal costs to be recovered from the other side.
Although this claim was small in comparison to most of our housing disrepair cases our client had up until the point of instruction lived with damp and draughty windows which had caused her much distress and frustration and whilst getting her home back to a livable state was the priority, the compensation that our client received came a close second.
For more information on how compensation is generally calculated, read our article on this subject: https://www.mjvlaw.co.uk/legal-news/housing-disrepair-compensation/
by Jane Willacey
We were instructed at the end of October 2021 by Mrs C from Oldham, Manchester who had been experiencing ongoing disrepair within her council flat since 2018. We took her case on under a ’No Win No Fee’ agreement.
In the summer of 2018 our client noticed a mouse in the kitchen of her second floor flat. After investigations by her son, it was found that there were a substantial amount of mouse droppings in the lower cupboards and behind the kick boards. Our client reported this to the council numerous times but received no reply. By the winter of 2018 our client was unable to store food or utensils in her cupboards and using her kitchen at all had become extremely unsanitary due to the large amount of rodent faeces.
Later, at the end of 2018, our client noticed a slow leak in the corner of her boiler cupboard. This was reported to the council via email and telephone along with the mouse reports but again our client received no response.
By the end of 2019 the slow leak in the boiler cupboard had become a lot worse: there was some staining to the walls and a small amount of mould was starting to grow. Around the same time our client started to notice slight staining on the walls of her bathroom which were damp to the touch, this was also added to the weekly email to the council to no avail.
After living for two years with a slow leak and a mouse infestation and getting no response from the council she contacted us, and we took on her case on a ‘No Win No Fee’ agreement.
We sent a detailed letter of claim to the council setting out that they were in breach of express and implied terms of tenancy and/or breach of their statutory and common law duties by not adhering to the clauses outlined in the tenancy regarding the council’s responsibility for the maintenance and repairs of the building.
We instructed a surveyor to inspect the property. The surveyor reported that some of the main issues were, but not limited to, a leak found on the external wall, an ingress of rainwater from a defective verge to gable wall, a small amount of water damage to floors and carpets in the hallway (the likely cause of which was defective flashing due to vegetation growth) and defective roof components, plus an infestation of mice caused by numerous holes throughout the property.
Some weeks later we received an acknowledgement of the letter of claim from the councils’ solicitors. They instructed their own surveyor to assess the property, and their surveyors’ report agreed with ours in some part but not on all counts. Therefore the landlord rejected our expert surveyors report and denied liability.
At this point our only option was to issue small claims court proceedings and request a joint inspection between both parties’ expert surveyors. Once the joint inspection took place it became apparent that the landlord’s surveyor had initially missed the leak in the boiler cupboard. The landlord’s surveyors’ report was then updated to reflect this.
As the hearing date drew closer, the landlord’s solicitor contacted us with what is known as a part 36 offer to settle out of court. The offer that was put forward was very low in monetary value but included a term that all repairs were to be completed within 120 days. We rejected this offer and made a counter-offer of £1900.00 in damages plus repairs to be done within a much shorter time frame. The landlord accepted this offer.
Although this claim was small in comparison to most of our housing disrepair cases, our client had up until the point of instruction lived with a slow leak and a mouse infestation for a number of years which had caused her much distress and frustration and, as such, getting her home back to a liveable state was the priority, with the compensation that our client received a comfort but secondary.
For more information on how compensation is generally calculated, read our article on this subject: https://www.mjvlaw.co.uk/legal-news/housing-disrepair-compensation/
by Jane Willacey
We were instructed at the start of November 2020 by Dr C from Southeast London who had been experiencing ongoing leaks within her leasehold flat since 2006. We took her case on under a ’No Win No Fee’ agreement.
Our client purchased her leasehold property in the summer of 2006. Within just a few months leaks began to appear from both the ceiling and walls in her living room, hallway and main bedroom. Our client contacted the freeholder who responded by sending a contractor to check the roof and guttering. The contractor reported that the leak in the living room was being caused by water running from the box guttering and along the top of the windows, he couldn’t find the cause of the leaks in the hallway and bedroom.
Although the freeholder was aware of the issues and of the cause of one of the leaks this was not fixed and no further investigation to find the cause of the other leaks occurred. Our client contacted the freeholder multiple times via telephone and email over the next few years to no avail.
In June of 2011 a new leak appeared in the living room, this was in a separate area to the leaks that had been constantly reported since 2006, this again was reported to the freeholder who eventually sent a contractor to check the roof. The contractor reported that there was a substantial issue with the rear wall and some months later a team of workmen attended the property, they made repairs to a 90-degree bend in a relocated drainage pipe and cleared the gutters but this unfortunately didn’t solve our client’s problem and the leaks carried on for a further eight years
At the end of 2019 our client noticed a crack forming on one of the walls in her living room, this was reported to the freeholder on a weekly basis along with the ongoing leak reports but again our client received no response from the freeholder. The crack had grown significantly larger by the summer of 2020. Our client inspected the corresponding exterior wall herself to find that it was damp with a large amount of moss growth. After numerous more emails and calls our client did eventually receive a response from the freeholder who informed our client that the issue was reported to the repairs team however no investigation or attempts at repair took place.
The freeholder made very little attempt over fourteen years to adequately investigate or repair the external damage which was the root cause of the internal disrepair therefore we took our clients instruction and gathered evidence of the fourteen years of correspondence between our clients and the freeholder plus copies of the original lease and appointed an expert surveyor to assess the property and report his findings.
Our expert surveyor reported that some of the main issues were but not limited to bulging and damage to ceilings, plasterwork, skirting boards and flooring caused by numerous untreated historical leaks, a large structural crack in the living room caused by the degrading of the substrate due to excess water in this area plus damp exterior walls with a large amount of moss growth, all of which were related to the roof and guttering which was in severe structural disrepair
We sent a detailed letter of claim to the freeholder setting out that they were in breach of express and implied terms of tenancy and/or breach of their statutory and common law duties by not adhering to the clauses outlined in the leasehold regarding the freeholder’s responsibility for the maintenance and repairs of the structural integrity of the building.
Neither the freeholder nor their solicitor acknowledged our letter of claim and after chasing them countless times for a response we went ahead and issued court proceedings. Some weeks later and well into the procedure for issuing we finally got a response from the freeholders’ solicitors who let us know that they had instructed their own surveyor to assess the property. The survey went ahead as planned and the other party’s expert agreed with our expert surveyor on all counts of disrepair.
We made an offer to the freeholder to settle out of court but our offer was rejected therefore we continued to prepare for a trial. A matter of weeks before the trial date the freeholders’ solicitors came back to us with an initial offer, we refused the initial offer but after a few more days of negotiations our client accepted a part 36 offer of £19,500 in damages with all repairs and legal fees covered by the other side
Our client’s had up until the point of instruction lived in a state of disrepair for fourteen years and whilst getting their home returned to the state it should have been in was the priority the compensation that our client received for fourteen years of stress and frustration came a close second.
For more information on how compensation is generally calculated, read our article on this subject: https://www.mjvlaw.co.uk/legal-news/housing-disrepair-compensation/
