Any landlord of a property that they let to tenants is under a duty to ensure that the property is in a suitable state of repair.
If you are living in a rented property that has not been adequately maintained by your landlord, it could be that you have a claim for housing disrepair. However, it is not as simple as to say that because a property is in poor condition you will have a claim for compensation.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides for certain circumstances when a landlord has a duty to repair a property and, when they do not do so, damages (commonly known as compensation) can be recovered for the tenant.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA85) sets out a Landlord’s obligations to repair a property that is let out to a tenant by way of a short lease.
It states that there is an implied term in any relevant short lease that a landlord must keep a property in an adequate state of repair in terms of the structure and exterior including any and all drains, gutters and external pipes.
The LTA85 further requires them to keep all of the “installations” in the property that supply water, gas, electricity and sanitation items (such as the toilets) in a good, working condition. Specific reference is given to this applying to basins, sinks, baths and “sanitary conveniences”, but not other fixtures and fittings that use gas, water or electricity. As such, it is not a requirement for a landlord to ensure that a washing machine, dishwasher or cooker are working.
Finally, part C of Section 11 sets out the requirement for a landlord to ensure that they keep the heating installations for both space heating and heating water in a state of repair and in proper working order.
The acceptable quality of the repair work undertaken by the landlord will depend upon various things, but consideration will be given to the age of the property, its character and the prospective life of the property. It would also include consideration of the local area. So, a property in a high rise block of flats in a city centre would not require the same standard of work as a large, detached residence in a rural village.
The obligation to repair is binding on landlords even if they include provisions in the lease to try and avoid it.
Section 11, however, also makes clear what is expected of the tenant. The landlord’s obligations to keep the gas, water, electricity and sewage installations in a state of repair does not mean that they have to repair any damage done to them by a tenant. If these items do not work as a consequence of the tenant misusing or deliberately or recklessly damaging them, the landlord has no duty to repair that damage.
It also does not extend to imposing a requirement on the landlord to rebuild or reinstate the property in the event that it is destroyed or damaged by fire, flood or other such inevitable accident or “Act of God”.
A tenant is also required to ensure that they keep in a good state of repair and well maintained any items that they are entitled to remove from the rented property. For example, if a property was unfurnished and a tenant installed their own washing machine, that tenant would have to ensure that it was kept in a good working order. If that washing machine then leaked and caused damage to the property it would be the responsibility of the tenant and not the landlord to pay for the repairs.
Short Leases
The repairing obligations under Section 11 of the LTA85 apply to short term leases.
A short-term lease is defined by 13(1) as any lease granted on or after 24 October 1961 for a dwelling house with a term of fewer than seven years.
If a lease has a term of fewer than seven years, but contains an option to renew, which, if exercised, would extent the lease beyond seven years then it is not considered a short term lease and Section 11 would not apply.
The vast majority of rented properties in England and Wales are rented out under the terms of assured shorthold tenancy agreements of six or twelve months. Such agreements would be include the covenants implied by Section 11 and so most tenants of rented properties in England and Wales have the protection that it affords.
Reporting the Issue
It is, of course, a requirement for the tenant to make the landlord aware of the problem.
It is true that, under Section 11 LTA85, any short lease to which the landlord’s repairing obligation applies also contains an implied term that allows the landlord to enter the property for the purposes of viewing the condition and state of repair, provided always that 24 hours’ notice is given, and the inspection takes place at a reasonable time of day. However, if a landlord does not exercise this right and inspect the property, it is essential for the tenant to make them aware of any problems.
In the case of Samuel Edwards v Balasas Kumarasamy [2015] EWCA Civ 20, it was stated that “the general rule is that a covenant to keep premises in repair obliges the covenantor to keep them in repair at all times, so that there is a breach of the obligation immediately after a defect occurs. There is an exception where the obligation is the landlord’s and the defect occurs in the demised premises themselves, in which case he is in breach of his obligation only when he has information about the existence of the defect such as would put a reasonable landlord on inquiry as to whether the works of repair are needed and he has failed to carry out the necessary works with reasonable expedition thereafter”.
So, if there is an issue with a property, the duty to repair it falls on a landlord as soon as they are notified of it by a tenant.
Any landlord who wishes to keep to his obligations would arrange an inspection within a reasonable time, normally a few days, and arrange the works to be carried out as soon as practicably possible thereafter.
If the issue is one that manifests itself inside the property and the landlord carries out an inspection, the landlord is considered to have learned of it at the inspection.
If, however, he is notified of it by the tenant, he is considered to have learned of it when the tenant told him.
Any tenant should ensure that they notify the landlord of any issues and be sure to do so in writing. Leaving a paper trail and evidence of the notification of the disrepair could prove to be crucial evidence in the event that a claim arises.
If you are living in a rented property and have an issue for which the landlord is required to undertake a repair and you have not yet informed the, you should do so immediately and in writing. If you have already informed the landlord, you should keep a written record of how and when you notified them of the issue and each time you have had to chase them to act.
The burden of proof is on a tenant to prove that the landlord had notice of a defect and so giving that notice by written means ensures that proving notice was given will be much easier.
While it is possible for a landlord to receive notice by visiting the property at an inspection, it is not enough for them to have visited alone. The defect must have been visible and clear to see from such an inspection for the landlord or his agent to be considered to have been informed of it. The defect must have been visible and obvious at the time.
Where a defect is visible from outside of the property, there is no requirement for a tenant to give the landlord notice of it, but it is always best practice to do so.
The Requirement to Repair
Section 11 sets out the requirement for a landlord to keep certain services and parts of a property in a state of repair. The LTA85 itself does not define what “in repair” means and so this has been left to the courts to determine using common law.
In the matter of Uddin & Anor v Islington London Borough Council (2015), a tenant resided in a property that suffered from rising damp. The Council had previously inserted a damp proof course into the property and so they tried to argue that they had taken the steps that were required to keep the property in a state of repair. The court disagreed and found in favour of the Claimants.
The damp was caused by an inherent defect in the property and the Council had taken steps to try and solve the problem, but as these efforts failed, the court found them in breach of their repairing obligation under Section 11 LTA85. The Claimants were awarded damages of £14,680.
Ackner LJ, speaking in the judgment of the Court of Appeal stated, “I have no hesitation in rejecting the submission that the appellants’ (the Council’s) obligation was repetitively to carry out futile work instead of doing the job properly once and for all”.
So a Landlord has a duty to ensure that a property let to a tenant is in a state of repair even if it was not when it was first let to the tenant.
It is a requirement of Section 11 of the LTA85 that some part of the structure or exterior of the property is in a state of disrepair. So, the covenants only apply when there is physical damage to either the structure or exterior and they do not apply if the damage has been caused by the tenant or their failure to act.
If a property has an issue, such as damp, a landlord is not automatically liable and required to repair it. In each case the tenant must show the damp has arisen from a landlord’s failure to maintain the property and keep it in good repair, which has caused physical damage to the exterior or structure of the property. The tenant must then show that it is this failure to maintain that has caused the issue complained of.
The structure of a property has been defined by the courts as consisting of the elements of a house that give it its essential appearance and shape. The case of Tanya Grand v Param Gill (2011) concerned whether the interior plaster of a property was part of its structure and the court determined that it was as it represented a material or significant element of the overall construction.
While plaster is considered to be a part of the structure, the décor of a property would not be as it is for decorative purposes only and does not contribute to the overall structure of a property.
For this reason, it is absolutely vital that a tenant who believes they have a claim under Section 11 seeks expert legal advice and the assistance of a suitably qualified and experienced surveyor. It will not be enough for a tenant to show that their property has an issue such as damp. They will need to prove to a court that the damp has been caused by a landlord’s failure to keep the items listed in Section 11 of the LTA 85 in a good state of repair and maintenance.
If defects are caused because of the age and type of a property then this would not amount to a disrepair and a tenant would not have a claim against a landlord.
When a landlord does have an obligation to repair, he must ensure that the repairs are carried out within a reasonable time after he has received a valid notice of the need for them. Reasonable will be determined by the extent and nature of the repairs that are necessary. If the repairs constitute an emergency then the time that the landlord will have could be quite short.
Good Working Order
Section 11 of LTA85 sets out that the pipes, cables and other such media that carry gas, water and electric to a property must be kept in a state of repair and must be working. As such, they must be designed and installed in a way that means that they are capable of carrying out the job for which they have been installed.
If they are installed and working well in all conditions that are reasonably foreseeable then the landlord will have complied with their obligations. However, if they have been installed in a way that causes them to fail, for example, in the case of icy or cold weather, then, as such weather is reasonably foreseeable in the United Kingdom, then they would not be considered adequate and it would be the responsibility of the landlord to have the issues rectified.
Personal Injury
In the event that a landlord has been properly notified of an issue and is required under the terms of the LTA85 to rectify that issue, but does not, a tenant who is named on a lease would be able to pursue a claim against the landlord for personal injury should that issue cause physical harm to them.
It is most likely in such cases that the issue will be one related to or causing damp and that this will.
Advice
If you are the tenant in a property and you have concerns about its condition then, as has been demonstrated above, it is essential for you to obtain specialist advice to assess whether you have a claim against your landlord.
It will be essential to obtain the report of a surveyor who is familiar with the LTA85 and other such legislation to enable them to properly assess your situation and the facts of it.
For specialist advice, call us today on 01253 858231 or e-mail info@mjvlaw.co.uk.
by Jane Willacey
We were instructed in April 2021 by Mr H from East Hertfordshire, who had been experiencing ongoing disrepair within his council house since May 2019. We took his case on under a ’No Win No Fee’ agreement.
In May 2019 our client became aware of damp and mould on the walls of both the hallway and the bathroom, this was reported to the council and workmen were sent to the property. The workmen identified a leak in the airing cupboard and repairs were made to stop this leak however, the repairs did not affect the damp and mould, in fact it quickly spread to the walls of the kitchen as well as the flooring in the hallway.
In August 2020 after numerous complaints to the council, workmen again attended the property. The workmen advised that they would report to the council the extent of the disrepair. Our client did not hear from the council again despite making numerous complaints via phone and email.
By December 2020 the mould and damp had become so bad that soft furnishings such as cushions, carpets and curtains were drenched and had to be thrown away. It was at this point that the council provided our client with a dehumidifier which was used 24 hours a day, 7days a week. The machine collected a full bucket of water every 24-36 hours however it had no affect on the mould and damp which continued to spread.
After living for over two years with severe black mould and damp and getting little help from the council our client contacted us, we took on his case under 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.
The surveyor reported that some of the main issues were but not limited to high damp meter readings throughout the property, hazardous black mould on walls, floor and ceilings, blown seals on all the windows and lack of ventilation in both the kitchen and bathroom.
Some weeks later we received an acknowledgement of the letter of claim from the councils’ solicitors, the other party instructed their own surveyor to assess the property, their surveyors report agreed with ours on all counts.
As the hearing date drew closer the other party’s solicitor contacted us with a part 36 offer to settle out of court. The offer that was put forward was on the low end and did not include repairs. We rejected this offer and continued to prepare for the trial. A few weeks later the other party’s solicitor made another part 36 offer which this time included repairs however the damages were below our valuation therefore we made a counteroffer of £10,500 in damages, repairs to be completed within 90 days and all costs recovered from the other side. The other party accepted the offerand the settlement was agreed.
Our client had up until the point of instruction lived within a severe state of disrepair which had caused him much distress and frustration and whilst getting his 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
If you live in a rented property and your home is in a state of disrepair, it may be that your landlord would rather evict you than pay for the repairs to be completed.
In such cases, there are steps that you can take to prevent yourself from being evicted, but only if you are not in breach of the terms of your lease.
Improvement Notices
Landlords can normally evict their tenants once the initial term of a lease has expired without giving a reason. This is known as the Section 21 process. It comes from Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. If you have complained about the condition of your property to your council the landlord could be barred from evicting you in this way. If the council serve an improvement notice on the landlord they are not allowed to use this type of eviction for six months. When the six month period runs from varies.
If you have complained about disrepair and receive an eviction notice it may not be too late. Reporting the matter to your council immediately is advisable. If they serve an improvement notice after the eviction notice it could be treated as applying retrospectively. It all depends on you being able to prove you complained of the disrepair before the eviction notice was served.
This only applies to Section 21 evictions. Evictions under Section 8 of the legislation are normally based upon the fault of the tenant. They usually require you to have breached the terms of the lease. The most common ground reason is that the tenant is in rent arrears of more than two months. In these cases the landlord is not barred from seeking an eviction if the council has served notice.
If your property is not in a state of disrepair, Shelter has general guidance for you to consider.
If you are suffering from disrepair, you should obtain specialist legal advice. MJV Solicitors in most cases can offer no win no fee assistance to clients suffering from housing disrepair. Call us today on 01253 858231 or e-mail info@mjvlaw.co.uk and one of our team will call you back.
by Jane Willacey
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
Notice is often the point of dispute in a housing disrepair claim.
Disrepair
Part of the test to assess whether a potential client is likely to have a claim for housing disrepair is that their home is in a poor condition due to their landlord failing to undertake repairs that are their responsibility.
We will not go into this in any detail in this article as we will be writing in the near future on what is meant by disrepair and what type of issues typically fall under the landlord’s obligations.
Notice
The second part of the test is that the tenant has given their landlord sufficient notice. The disrepair or defect must be brought to their attention. If, having received notice of disrepair for which the landlord is responsible, they fail to carry out repairs within a reasonable time, you are likely to have a good claim for housing disrepair.
Without the notice, a landlord is likely to agree to undertake the repairs, but not compensate you for the inconvenience and distress their failure to act has caused.
Method
Most of our clients report issues with disrepair by telephone. While many landlords are very good at keeping records and record any such reports, many do not.
We are often instructed by clients a few years after they say they first reported a particular problem and so they cannot give much information as to the date that the issue was reported. If there is no record within the evidence the landlord discloses to us, it is much more difficult for a claim to succeed as it is necessary for a tenant to give a landlord notice.
As such, we recommend, whether you are intending to bring a claim or not, you should always report any disrepair by e-mail. You will then have a written record of the date and time of each report as well as the contents of each complaint. You can refer back to this for years to come.
Nobody knows whether their landlord will act responsibly for if they will fail in their duty towards them. As such, you should always proceed cautiously.
External Disrepair
It is not necessary for a tenant to report items of disrepair to the exterior of the property. These are discoverable without the landlord gaining entry to the property. However, where the external disrepair gives rise to internal problems (such as if there are issues with the pointing at the property allowing water to enter) then the issues affecting the inside must still be reported.
Constructive Notice
If there has been an inspection since an internal problem first showed, provide it was discoverable by the naked eye, the landlord can be considered to have constructive notice.
However, while a tenant may say that it was discoverable, landlords are likely to deny this and so deny that nootice has been served.
The Importance
A claim for housing disrepair compensation cannot succeed unless a tenant can prove that notice was given to the landlord.
The damages you receive will be calculated based on the period from the date a reasonable landlord would have completed the repairs having received notice. More can be found on how compensation is calculated here: https://www.mjvlaw.co.uk/legal-news/housing-disrepair-compensation/
Just in case you ever need to bring such a claim, always report issues by e-mail and always save those e-mails. You will, hopefully, never need them, but you will be glad you followed this advice if you do.
by Jane Willacey
We were instructed at the end of December 2021 by Mrs W from South London who had been experiencing ongoing disrepair within the council flat she shared with her two young children since 2007. We took her case on under a ’No Win No Fee’ agreement.
In the winter of 2007, our client noticed a slow leak coming from the ceiling of the master bedroom, our client reported this to the council several times over the period of a few months however our client didn’t receive a reply.
By the spring of 2008 black mould had started to form on the ceiling where the leak originated and the plaster work in this area had begun to crumble, again the disrepair was reported and this time our client received a reply, she was informed that an appointment had been made for a contractor to attend however they didn’t turn up to the appointment.
Our client attempted numerous times over a Fourteen year period to have her property repaired however all her requests were ignored
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.
The councils’ solicitors acknowledged our letter of claim and both parties arranged for the property to be inspected by our nominated expert surveyors. The surveyors reported that some of the main issues were but not limited to
Damp and mould found in the master bedroom which recorded a high damp meter reading.
Defective rendering, guttering and damage to drainage pipes which was the main cause of the initial slow leak and subsequent mould.
We made a part 36 offer to settle without the need for court proceedings, our first offer was rejected however the other party accepted a subsequent offer of £8590.00 in damages and repairs to be completed within 60 days plus all legal costs recovered from the other side.
Although the disrepair for this claim was small in comparison to most of our housing disrepair cases the amount of time that our client lived within a state of disrepair meant that she received a substantial amount of compensation and whilst getting her home back to a liveable state was the priority the damages 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 2022 by Mr H from North London who had been experiencing ongoing disrepair within his council owned flat since December 2017. We took his case on under a ’No Win No Fee’ agreement.
In the winter of 2017, our client noticed that mould was beginning to form on the walls and ceilings in the bedroom, bathroom and living room plus he was finding a large number of slugs within the property when the weather was cold and damp. Our client reported this to the council via phone and email a considerable number of times over a five-year period with no response from the council.
By the start of 2021 the damp and mould had become so bad that it had ruined all the soft furnishings within the property, carpets, bedding, and curtains to name just a few were saturated with damp and mould which had a negative impact on our clients physical and mental health.
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 and we instructed an expert surveyor to assess the disrepair.
The surveyor reported that some of the main issues were but not limited to severely blocked guttering and drainage pipes, inadequate ventilation and blown seals on all windows and doors.
Some weeks later we received an acknowledgement of the letter of claim from the councils’ solicitors however they were reluctant to enter in to negotiations to commence repairs and settle out of court, therefore we issued court proceedings.
As the hearing date drew nearer we received a part 36 offer to settle out of court. The offer was lower than our valuation therefore we made a counter offer which in turn was rejected.
The judge ruled that the council were in breach of express and implied terms of tenancy and/or breach of their statutory and common law duties and awarded our client £3850 in compensation with all repairs to be made within 90 days.
Our client up until the point of instruction had lived with damp, mould and a slug infestation for four years which had caused him considerable distress and frustration and whilst getting his home back to a liveable 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
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides a valuable resource to housing disrepair lawyers who are not put off by having to utilise the Magistrates Court.
The majority of claims for housing disrepair are brought using Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This requires that the structure, service media and conveniences of the property are kept in a good and functional condition. These must decline in their state of repair from the date the property is let to the date the issue is reported to the landlord. If they are in a poor condition on the date the lease is signed, there is no requirement for the landlord to improve them.
Where the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is different, is that it enables tenants, occupiers and or their neighbours to bring criminal proceedings due to premises being a risk to health regardless of the condition they were in on the date any tenancy began.
This means that properties that are poorly designed or have inherent defects are caught by the legislation. A tenant in a property blighted by mould caused by inadequate ventilation is unlikely to have a claim under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as it is likely that the poor ventilation would be considered a design flaw and not disrepair. This is a common occurrence in older properties that were designed at a time when the specifics of modern usage could not reasonably have been foreseen.
Claims brought under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and its predecessor, the Public Health Act 1936, are primarily claims brought as statutory nuisances. A bad property is actionable if:
• it is in a state of repair which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
• there is an accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
• there are insects coming from an industrial, trade or business premises that could be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
• a well, tank, cistern or other such water carry facility used for the supply of water for domestic purposes is in a condition that renders the water liable to contamination prejudicial to health;
• a pond or other such watercourse is so foul it is prejudicial to health or a nuisance; or
• noise coming from the premises is such that it is prejudicial to health or a nuisance.
The legislation is intended to have a wide catchment. It is intended to cover all land and vessels in the public or private sector. The premises need not even be occupied as it is their condition and not the manner in which they are used that determines a breach.
The key matter to prove is not that there is a defect, which will normally be apparent, but that it is such that it poses either a nuisance or it could be prejudicial to health. However, the matters caught by the legislation are those that are public health matters that are or could be injurious or likely to cause injury to health.
If you are a tenant living in a property blighted by poor conditions that you believe could cause an injury to you or someone else, it is important to obtain clear advice from lawyers familiar with the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Not all cases can lead to a successful prosecution, but if a civil claim under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is unavailable, it is important to explore the other options available and so it is vital to instruct a lawyer who is familiar with them.
If you are a social housing tenant who is struggling with disrepair, we may be able to help. Call us on 01253 858231 or email us at info@mjvlaw.co.uk
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 are often asked by clients how much compensation they will receive if their claim succeeds.
Unlike personal injury claims, where the Judicial College Guidelines serve as a guide, there is no such tool in housing disrepair claims.
General Damages / Compensation
General damages are more commonly referred to as compensation. They serve to compensate the tenant for the inconvenience, discomfort and distressed caused to them through their landlord’s breach of their repairing obligations.
The most commonly used method of assessing damages is as a reduction in the rental value of the property.
Take a property was comprised of 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 1 living room and 1 kitchen. If it was let for £100 per week and the disrepair complained of materially affected 1 of the bedrooms, the bathroom and the living room, it would affect 50% of the rooms. Using a very simplistic approach, that would mean the compensation would be £50 per week, being half of the £100 per week rent.
This is paid for the period from when a reasonable landlord would have completed the repairs to the date the landlord of our client did so.
If, in this example, the landlord undertook the repairs 50 weeks after they should have, the tenant would receive compensation of £2,500.
Special Damages
Special damages can be considered your out of pocket expenses. You are entitled to recover any money that you have paid as a result of the problems for which your landlord was responsible.
There is no finite list of these, but you must be able to prove your loss and so receipts should always be kept.
Examples of Special Damages in Housing Disrepair Claims
Cleaning costs;
Loss of earnings (such as if you have had to take time off work to meet the landlord’s agents and they have not attended the appointment);
Additional heating costs or the costs of a dehumidifier when trying to dry out the property;
The cost of alternative accommodation if your property was uninhabitable for any time;
The cost of repair, cleaning and redecoration (provided these are costs incurred personally and the work was not undertaken at the landlord’s expense);
Travel costs;
Medical costs;
The cost of dining out (such as if food storage or cooking facilities have been damaged).
