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 end of April 2021 by Mrs O from South London who had been experiencing ongoing leaks, damp and mould within the leasehold flat she had shared with her husband and three children since 2019. We took her case on under a ’No Win No Fee’ agreement.
Our client and her family moved into their first floor flat in 2012 and in 2014 they purchased the leasehold. In early 2019 wet patches and mould started to appear on the walls and window frames in both the kitchen and the living room and soon after it quickly spread to the flooring and throughout other rooms. Our client checked with their downstairs neighbour who confirmed she was experiencing the same issues and together they looked over the exterior walls finding that two walls on one side of the building were very wet and covered with algae.
Our client tried multiple times to contact the council who owned the freehold of the building but she didn’t get a reply. Our client continuously called and emailed the freeholder over the next few months to no avail.
By the summer of 2019 the disrepair was getting progressively worse, our client was spending both time and money washing down and repainting walls, cleaning carpets and replacing soft furnishings that had become saturated with damp and mould. It was at this point that the freeholder sent a contractor to the property who cosmetically covered up the damage by painting over the offending mould on the walls and window frames however no repairs and no investigations into the root cause of the disrepair took place.
At the start of 2020 a particularly long spell of heavy rain caused a major leak in the bedroom, water had poured through the light fitting resulting in the electrics shorting out. Our client was living with no electricity supply to this room but the resulting emails and calls to the freeholder again were ignored.
By the early spring of 2021 our client and her family had lived in a state of disrepair for over two years which had really taken its toll and had a detrimental impact on the family. It was at this point that our client felt that they could no longer live in their property whilst it was in such a severe state of disrepair, their physical and mental health had been severely affected and to provide a better home for herself, her husband and their children they took the decision to rent a property paying a reduced rent through their church until the disrepair was rectified. Our client was now effectively paying for two properties putting a heavy strain on their financial situation.
The freeholder made no attempt over two 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 some of the main issues were an active leak from a soil pipe causing penetrating damp and mould in the kitchen and bathroom and an active leak coming from the above property, which resulted in numerous problems such as black mould, damp, moss growth, rotten panelling, spalled plaster, lifted flooring and warped doors and frames.
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 freeholders responsibility for the maintenance and repairs of all common area water and waste pipes.
The other party’s solicitor acknowledged our letter of claim but didn’t contact us with a reply, however after chasing them for some weeks they did eventually instruct their own nominated surveyor to assess the property. The freeholder’s expert surveyors report agreed with ours therefore we made a settlement offer.
Our offer was rejected and liability was denied with the freeholder stating that our client “should claim on their insurance”. We argued that even if our client was able to claim on her insurance for damages the leaks would first need to be stopped and this was the freeholder’s obligation under the express and implied terms of tenancy.
All of our subsequent offers were rejected and the council continued to deny liability therefore we issued court proceedings. As the date of the court case grew closer the freeholders’ solicitors contacted us to let us know that they would now welcome an offer of settlement, we made an offer based on the monthly rent valuation of their property, the amount of time that had passed, the effect on the families physical and mental health and their excess outgoings for rent on their temporary property. Our offer was again rejected by the freeholder with their counteroffer being well below par and in turn rejected by us.
Fast forward to just two days before the trial date, the freeholders solicitors came back to us with a part 36 offer to settle out of court of £25,600 to cover damages and repairs with all their legal fees recovered from the other side. After discussing this offer with our client she accepted.
Our client’s had up until the point of instruction lived in a state of disrepair for over two 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/
