We were instructed in December 2021 by Mrs A from Croydon who had been experiencing ongoing disrepair within her council flat since the winter of 2015. We took her case on under a ’No Win No Fee’ agreement.
In November 2015 our client noticed damp, water staining and mould growth on her bedroom ceiling. This was reported this to the council who sent contractors to the property. Our client was informed that the contractors believed the leak to of come from the above property and that repairs had been successful, however after just a few weeks there was evidence that the leak had reoccurred.
In the spring of 2017 and after multiple complaints contractors were sent to the property, they again told our client that they had identified the source of the leak and repairs had been made, however the contractors left our client with a large hole in the ceiling plus the leak and mould growth not only continued but also started to spread to other rooms in her property.
The council sent contractors back to the property time and time again however the result was always the same and by the end of 2020 our clients property was covered in mould and damp which was so bad that she couldn’t have curtains or blinds up at any of her windows as they would become saturated and consumed by the mould within days.
By the end of 2021 our client was at her wits end, she had endured six years of damp and mould which was having a negative impact on both her physical and mental wellbeing.
Once we were instructed, 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 and we instructed an expert surveyor to assess the disrepair.
The surveyor reported that some of the main issues were but not limited to a severely blocked hopper and an active leak originating from a water storage tank above the property.
We received an acknowledgement of the letter of claim from the councils’ solicitors and they instructed their own expert surveyor to assess the property, their surveyors report agreed with ours therefore we made a part 36 offer to settle out of court, this offer was rejected by the other party as the council stated that the first complaint record that they had from our client was in 2018 rather than 2015. This certainly was not the case, we gathered the client’s evidence including phone records, emails and paper trails going back over six years.
The other party after viewing our client’s evidence came back to us with a counteroffer which was a lot less than our valuation of the claim therefore, we rejected their offer and we entered negotiations, the other party eventually accepted our part 36 offer to settle of £9000.00 plus all repairs to be completed within 30 days and all legal costs recovered from the other side.
Our client up until the point of instruction had lived with an active leak, damp and mould for six years which had caused her much distress and frustration which had a negative impact on her physical health and mental health 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 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 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/
