We were instructed in May 2021 by Mr H from North London who had been experiencing ongoing leaks within his council flat since December 2020. We took his case on under a ’No Win No Fee’ agreement.
Our client noticed water coming through the light fittings in his bathroom and hallway on 23rd December 2020, this was reported to the council on the emergency line and a work man attended, our client was told that there wasn’t anything that can be done that evening but the lights were safe to use.
On 24th December 2020 our client again reported to the council that the leaks were still active and were causing a considerable amount of damage to the ceiling and floors, however they did not send anybody out to inspect the issue.
Our client contacted the council multiple times via telephone and email over the next few months to no avail and by March 2021 the plasterwork on the ceilings and walls was starting to crumble, the floors were saturated and black mould was starting to form.
The council made no attempt to investigate or repair the leak therefore we took our clients instruction and gathered evidence of the correspondence between our clients and the council plus copies of the tenancy 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, damp and black mould caused by numerous untreated leaks with contaminated water ingress originating from a broken waste pipe in the flat above.
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 tenancy regarding the council’s responsibility for the maintenance and repairs of the structural integrity of the building.
We received a response from the councils 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 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 councils’ solicitors came back to us with an initial offer, we refused this offer as it was deemed below par but after a few more days of negotiations our client accepted a part 36 offer of £2,300 in damages with all repairs to be completed within 60 days and all legal fees covered by the other side.
Our client’s had up until the point of instruction lived with damp and mould for months and whilst getting their home returned to the state it should have been in was the priority the compensation that our client received for his 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/
by Jane Willacey
Withholding Rent
Many of our clients ask us whether they are entitled to withhold rent if heir landlord fails to undertake repairs. Given that compensation is normally calculated as a reduction in rent, this may seem reasonable. However, you should not withhold rent and should continue to pay in full.
Tenancy Agreement
The tenancy agreement requires you to pay the rent on a certain date. If you do not, you risk being evicted. Whether the court would grant an eviction would depend on the amount of arrears. If it is more than 2 months’ or 8 weeks’ rent, the Court has no discretion to refuse the request.
The agreement also requires a landlord to comply with their repairing obligations. It may seem unfair that you need to pay the rent in full. However, compensation in a housing disrepair claim is intended to be compensation for paying more rent than you should have for a property in disrepair.
If you do not pay your full rent, you will accrue arrears. It may be that your tenancy agreement provides for your landlord being entitled to recover interest on those arrears meaning that you will pay even more rent than you otherwise would.
If your landlord takes legal action against you, they have a right to claim interest. Any Claimant in a County Court claim is. This is provided by Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984. They are entitled to claim 8% of any monies owed as part of the claim.
If they do issue court proceedings, they are also entitled to recover their costs. If the claim is for less than £10,000 the costs will be limited to small claims costs of no more than £100. However, they are entitled to claim their court fees as well. These will be several hundreds of pounds. The exact amount will depend on the amount involved and whether a hearing is required.
While it is not certain that landlords would take such action, they may. They are entitled to do so and so it is not a risk we advise tenants to take.
Compensation
Even if your landlord does not evict or sue you, you would not receive the full amount of compensation if you were to withhold rent and subsequently settle your housing disrepair claim.
It is established that landlords can deduct the damages from the arrears due.
It is rare for a tenant to be awarded a 100% rent reduction as damages. Our experience suggests that the average is 20-40%. As such, if you withhold your full rent, it is possible that you would not receive any compensation and would remain in arrears after the claim settled. This would mean that the treat of eviction and or being sued would remain until you had paid the arrears.
Claims
If you are a tenant in a housing association or council property and your landlord has not completed repairs you have reported, we may be able to help.
Call us on 01253 858231 or e-mail info@mjvlaw.co.uk
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 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 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/
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/
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/
