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 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 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/
by Jane Willacey
We were instructed in November 2020 by Mr and Mrs Z from South London who had been experiencing substantial and ongoing disrepair since they moved into their leasehold property in the spring of 2012.. Having spent nearly eight years trying and failing to get the freeholder to repair exterior damage to the property which was causing internal disrepair they contacted us and we took on their case under a ‘No Win No Fee’ agreement.
Soon after moving into their ground floor flat our clients became aware of excess humidity in the bathroom which was causing condensation to run down the walls resulting in puddles on the floor. Our clients reported this to the freeholder who sent one of their contractors to inspect. Our clients were informed by the contractor that this is only condensation and there is nothing that can be done.
In the early winter of the same year our clients noticed that black mould was beginning to form on the walls of the bathroom. Our clients reported this again to the freeholder who informed our clients that this would be the clients responsibility. The freeholder refused to take any action to inspect the property.
By the middle of 2013 the disrepair was getting much worse. The excess moisture was affecting the metal fixtures of the bathroom which began to rust and the exterior wall of the bathroom was wet to the touch after rainfall, the black mould was also spreading and becoming thicker than it had been the previous year. Furthermore, the mould and damp started to appear in all of the other rooms of the property causing extensive damage to carpets, laminate flooring, walls and soft furnishings. Again, this was reported to the freeholder and an inspection took place, this time it was identified that part of the problem was likely to be that the soil outside the property was too high and situated far above the damp proof course causing excess moisture inside. However, despite the initial investigation the freeholder made no attempt to rectify the issue.
Towards the end of 2013, our clients noticed water leaking from the light fixture in their master bedroom. This was reported to the freeholder and the leak was stopped and ceiling painted. However, mildew started to grow on the ceiling of the master bedroom suggesting that the damage caused by the leak had not been properly rectified and instead just cosmetically covered up.
In the spring of 2014, our clients sent the freeholder a letter setting out all the complaints and repair requests that they had previously made to them over the two years of living at the property. The freeholder responded to this letter by telling our clients to use a better quality of paint and to paint over the areas where the black mould is showing through.
The disrepair carried on for a further six years with conditions gradually getting worse each year. Our clients were fighting a losing battle with the freeholder and as well as living in an unsafe environment they were spending hundreds each year having to replace flooring and soft furnishings that become saturated with damp and mould, this was having a detrimental effect on both our clients physical and mental health.
The freeholder had made absolutely no attempt to repair the damage and/or adequately investigate the root cause of the disrepair over the 8 years the clients had lived at the property, therefore we gathered all evidence of correspondence between our clients and the freeholder plus copies of the original lease and instructed a reputable surveyor to assess the property who reported that the level of disrepair was indeed substantial.
We also instructed a structural engineer who cited negligent building construction including but not limited to cold bridges, cracks and access holes in the exterior walls, soil above the damp proof course and ineffectual guttering and wastewater management all of which contributed to the very high levels of humidity, condensation and black mould. The experts concluded that the extent of the black mould and absence of proper ventilation was an urgent health hazard.
We sent a detailed letter of claim to the freeholder setting out that they were in breach of clauses of the lease and/or breach of their statutory and common law duties. The Freeholder denied liability stating that they were only responsible for the exterior of the property and not responsible for the clients’ interior disrepair which may have been true had the interior disrepair not been caused by exterior negligence.
The freeholder continued to deny liability even after appointing their own expert surveyor to assess the property, their surveyors report agreed on all counts with our experts report therefore we issued court proceedings. The freeholder at this point accepted that they need to take this seriously and entered negotiations with us. After numerous below par offers from the freeholder our client accepted a part 36 offer of £10,000 in damages with all repairs to be completed within 120 days plus all their legal costs recovered by the other side.
Our client’s had up until the point of instruction lived in a extreme state of disrepair for a total 8 years and whilst the most important thing for our client’s physical and mental health was getting their home repaired and them back to a good standard of living, the compensation payout that they received for all the distress and health implications caused came a close second.
For more information on how compensation is generally calculated, read our article on this subject: https://www.mjvlaw.co.uk/legal-news/housing-disrepair-compensation/
by MJV&Co
There are some cases where Councils and Housing Associations are able to legitimately argue that they have acted reasonably, but this was not one of them. Our client endured an internal leak for 5 years before an internal ceiling collapsed. His landlord then failed to repair the resulting damage for another 2 years.
Internal leak
In 2013, our client noticed that there was a wet patch forming on the ceiling of a downstairs toilet. He tried to clean it, but this did not work and so he reported it to his landlord.
They investigated and claimed that there was not a problem for which they were responsible.
The damp got worse and it became clear to our client that there was a leak coming from somewhere within the property. He reported this numerous times, but his landlord continued to deny liability.
In late 2018, the ceiling of the downstairs toilet collapsed. Our client reported this as an emergency and, five years after first reporting the problem and being told that it was not his landlord’s issue, the inspector undertook a proper investigation and concurred with our client. There was an internal leak and there had been for, at least, five years.
Work was undertaken and the leak was fixed.
Making Good
Following a repair, there is often damage. This can be to flooring, plaster and so forth. Repairing this resulting damage is known as ‘making good’ and what is required varies case by case.
In this matter, the ceiling in the downstairs toilet had collapsed and there was wider water damage to that room and the rooms around it. It fell under the landlord’s repairing obligations to make the damage good and to decorate.
Having repaired the leak, the landlord’s agent confirmed that someone would be back to make good. Having heard nothing for some time, our client called his landlord and asked that the work be undertaken as soon as possible. Unfortunately, nobody came.
Our client continued to report the problems he had been left with, but his landlord missed appointments to inspect the problem or failed to even agree to send someone.
Our Instructions
Our client contacted us for help and we agreed to bring his claim on a no win no fee basis.
We presented the claim to his landlord and they undertook an inspection. They admitted their breaches of their repairing obligations and agreed to undertake certain repairs. We advised our client that we were unhappy with what they were proposing and so we sent our own expert to carry out an inspection.
He agreed with our client. His landlord’s Schedule of Works was inadequate and he provided his own, which was far more comprehensive.
Following an exchange of views with his landlord, faced with the threat of court proceedings if they failed to agree to our proposal, they agreed to carry out our expert’s advised course of action. They completed those works, returning the client’s home to the condition it should always have been in.
Compensation
We were able to settle the claim for £2,800. Despite the problem going on for around 7 years, the rent at the property was low.
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/
The most important thing with any claim is ensuring that our client’s home is returned to a good condition. However, compensation for the inconvenience, distress and displeasure caused by an issue such as living with a collapsed ceiling, is a close second.
