We were instructed at the end of December 2021 by Mrs W from South London who had been experiencing ongoing disrepair within the leasehold flat that she shared with her young family since 2008. We took her case on under a ’No Win No Fee’ agreement.
In the winter of 2008, our client reported to the freeholder that she had noticed a wet patch on the ceiling of the main bedroom which became progressively worse with each rainfall. The ceiling very quickly became plagued by black mould which subsequently spread to the walls and ceilings in the second bedroom and bathroom.
The disrepair was reported to the freeholder by both telephone and email on a weekly basis for over thirteen years however the freeholder made no attempt to investigate or fix the source of the leak.
By the end of 2021 the black mould and damp was so bad that our client was unable to use the three rooms affected, numerous clothing and soft furnishings had been damaged beyond repair, her children were suffering from constant respiratory infections and the whole family was having to sleep in the living room.
As soon as we took instruction 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 lease regarding the freeholders responsibility for the maintenance and repairs of the building.
The freeholders’ solicitors replied to our letter of claim and both parties instructed expert surveyors who undertook their own separate inspections on the property. The experts reported that some of the main issues were but not limited to an Ingress of rainwater in multiple locations from a defective drainage system causing severe damage to ceilings and walls throughout the property plus high levels of humidity, damp and toxic black mould.
The freeholders nominated experts report agreed with our surveyors findings therefore the other party made a part 36 offer to settle out of court, this offer was well below par as were all subsequent offers made at this time therefore, we rejected the offers on behalf of our client and issued court proceedings.
As the hearing date drew closer the other party’s solicitor contacted us with another part 36 offer to settle out of court. The offer that was put forward was still below par but included all repairs to be completed within 120 days. We rejected this offer and made a counteroffer of £10,000.00 in damages plus all repairs to be completed within a much shorter time frame. Our client accepted the offer.
Our client had up until the point of instruction lived with damp and toxic black mould for thirteen years which had caused herself and her young family both mental and physical distress and whilst getting her home back to a live able 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 in January 2022 by Mrs D from Berkshire who had been experiencing ongoing damp and black mould within the leasehold flat she shared with her three children since 2014. We took her case on under a ’No Win No Fee’ agreement.
Our client and her family moved into their first floor flat in 2014 and in 2015 they purchased the leasehold. In early 2016 our client noticed damp and black mould on the wall in the main bedroom next to an exterior window. Our client contacted the freeholder but didn’t receive a reply. Our client continuously reported the disrepair between 2016 and 2021 to no avail.
In November 2021 our client who was unsure of the cause of the mould arranged for a plasterer to attend in a view to re-plastering the wall. The plasterer advised that he was unable to re-plaster the wall as it was far too wet and there must be a significant leak which would need to be remedied before the plaster work can be renewed.
The freeholder made no attempt over five years to adequately investigate or attempt to repair the external damage which was the root cause of the internal disrepair therefore once we took instruction, we gathered evidence of the 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.
The surveyor reported that the main issue was moisture penetration from the rainwater cast iron downpipe which had suffered fractures along the length of the pipe causing moisture to soak through the substrate and damage the plaster lining of the wall causing a high concentration of humidity and black mould.
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 all common area water and waste pipes.
The freeholders solicitor acknowledged our letter of claim and instructed their own nominated surveyor to assess the property. The freeholder’s expert surveyors report agreed with ours, howeverthe freeholder was neither willing to provide a schedule of works nor make our client an offer for damages therefore we issued court proceedings.
As the date of the hearing grew closer the freeholders’ solicitors contacted with a part 36 offer to settle out of court, the offer was well below par and was rejected by our client therefore the hearing went ahead.
The judge ruled that our client be awarded £15,000 in damages, her home be sufficiently repaired and all legal costs to be recovered from the other side.
Our client and her family had up until the point of instruction lived with damp and black mould for over six years and whilst getting their home repaired and returned to a liveable state was of primary importance the compensation that they received helped immensely with getting their lives back on track.
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 in November 2020 by Mr and Mrs Z from South London who had been experiencing substantial and ongoing disrepair since they moved into their leasehold property in the spring of 2012.. Having spent nearly eight years trying and failing to get the freeholder to repair exterior damage to the property which was causing internal disrepair they contacted us and we took on their case under a ‘No Win No Fee’ agreement.
Soon after moving into their ground floor flat our clients became aware of excess humidity in the bathroom which was causing condensation to run down the walls resulting in puddles on the floor. Our clients reported this to the freeholder who sent one of their contractors to inspect. Our clients were informed by the contractor that this is only condensation and there is nothing that can be done.
In the early winter of the same year our clients noticed that black mould was beginning to form on the walls of the bathroom. Our clients reported this again to the freeholder who informed our clients that this would be the clients responsibility. The freeholder refused to take any action to inspect the property.
By the middle of 2013 the disrepair was getting much worse. The excess moisture was affecting the metal fixtures of the bathroom which began to rust and the exterior wall of the bathroom was wet to the touch after rainfall, the black mould was also spreading and becoming thicker than it had been the previous year. Furthermore, the mould and damp started to appear in all of the other rooms of the property causing extensive damage to carpets, laminate flooring, walls and soft furnishings. Again, this was reported to the freeholder and an inspection took place, this time it was identified that part of the problem was likely to be that the soil outside the property was too high and situated far above the damp proof course causing excess moisture inside. However, despite the initial investigation the freeholder made no attempt to rectify the issue.
Towards the end of 2013, our clients noticed water leaking from the light fixture in their master bedroom. This was reported to the freeholder and the leak was stopped and ceiling painted. However, mildew started to grow on the ceiling of the master bedroom suggesting that the damage caused by the leak had not been properly rectified and instead just cosmetically covered up.
In the spring of 2014, our clients sent the freeholder a letter setting out all the complaints and repair requests that they had previously made to them over the two years of living at the property. The freeholder responded to this letter by telling our clients to use a better quality of paint and to paint over the areas where the black mould is showing through.
The disrepair carried on for a further six years with conditions gradually getting worse each year. Our clients were fighting a losing battle with the freeholder and as well as living in an unsafe environment they were spending hundreds each year having to replace flooring and soft furnishings that become saturated with damp and mould, this was having a detrimental effect on both our clients physical and mental health.
The freeholder had made absolutely no attempt to repair the damage and/or adequately investigate the root cause of the disrepair over the 8 years the clients had lived at the property, therefore we gathered all evidence of correspondence between our clients and the freeholder plus copies of the original lease and instructed a reputable surveyor to assess the property who reported that the level of disrepair was indeed substantial.
We also instructed a structural engineer who cited negligent building construction including but not limited to cold bridges, cracks and access holes in the exterior walls, soil above the damp proof course and ineffectual guttering and wastewater management all of which contributed to the very high levels of humidity, condensation and black mould. The experts concluded that the extent of the black mould and absence of proper ventilation was an urgent health hazard.
We sent a detailed letter of claim to the freeholder setting out that they were in breach of clauses of the lease and/or breach of their statutory and common law duties. The Freeholder denied liability stating that they were only responsible for the exterior of the property and not responsible for the clients’ interior disrepair which may have been true had the interior disrepair not been caused by exterior negligence.
The freeholder continued to deny liability even after appointing their own expert surveyor to assess the property, their surveyors report agreed on all counts with our experts report therefore we issued court proceedings. The freeholder at this point accepted that they need to take this seriously and entered negotiations with us. After numerous below par offers from the freeholder our client accepted a part 36 offer of £10,000 in damages with all repairs to be completed within 120 days plus all their legal costs recovered by the other side.
Our client’s had up until the point of instruction lived in a extreme state of disrepair for a total 8 years and whilst the most important thing for our client’s physical and mental health was getting their home repaired and them back to a good standard of living, the compensation payout that they received for all the distress and health implications caused 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 by Mr B from The Midlands in the summer of 2021, he had beenexperiencing substantial disrepair issues within his council property since 2017. Our client had tried and failed on numerous occasions to get the council to sufficiently repair his home therefore he contacted us and we took on his case under a ‘No Win No Fee’ agreement to claim compensation and get his home repaired.
Rotten wooden window frames and blown seals were causing draughts, leaks, condensation, and black mould. Numerous calls and emails from our client to the council had resulted in the window frames being glossed over rather than being adequately repaired or replaced and whilst this caused our client great distress and inconvenience this was not the worst of the disrepair. A leak above the living room had been slowly making itself known and after numerous calls and emails to the council no less than three contractors attended the property for it to be reported on each occasion that they were “unable to find the cause of the leak” and “it’s just a slow drip” but of course a slow drip over time will eventually lead to a much bigger problem in the future and it eventually resulted in the living room ceiling collapsing.
The councils attempts to fix the clients property were few and far between and less than satisfactory which left our client with the stress and physical health implications of living in a constant state of disrepair.
Evidence of numerous phone calls, emails and letters to the council were supplied by the client along with a report from a reputable surveyor that confirmed that the level of disrepair within our client’s property was substantial.
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 however they refused to accept liability or agree to do the repairs within a satisfactory time frame therefore we issued court proceedings.
The court ruled that the council was in breach of the terms of tenancy and the client was awarded compensation of £8,000 with all legal costs recovered from the other side. The living room ceiling was fixed and finished to a high standard with new windows fitted throughout within just a few weeks.
Our client had up until the point of instruction lived in a state of disrepair for a total of 1624 days and whilst the most important thing for the client’s health and well being was getting his home repaired the compensation for all the distress caused 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/
