Social Housing Speed Read – Claim of disrepair and unfitness for human habitation
8th November, 2024
In this weeks social housing speed read we consider the likely impact of a Circuit Judge's decision on unfitness and damages in the judgment of Godagam & Edirisinghe v Hanson. Mayors & City of London County Court, 3 May 2024 (unreported).
The case involved possession proceedings against the tenant, Mr Hanson, for rent arrears of £41,286. Mr Hanson counterclaimed for disrepair and unfitness for human habitation. The disrepair was extensive, and the property was considered unfit for human habitation from March 2020.
The disrepair included:
- Poor/no insulation in the walls and roof
- Dilapidated roof
- Poor ventilation
- No washing facilities
- Broken toilet and sink
- No hot water
- Dangerous electrical installation
- Rodent infestation
- Re-decoration required of the entire unit
- Inadequate fire protection
- Damaged work surfaces and cupboards.
A report in 2019 by LB Camden resulted in their taking action against the Landlord under the Housing Act 2004; a Hazard Awareness Notice and ultimately a Prohibition Order in 2020. The Claimants sought to defend Mr Hanson’s counterclaim on the basis that the disrepair was caused by Mr Hanson knocking through a wall in the property to a storage unit, without consent, and that Mr Hanson had refused access to do the works required.
The judge ultimately disagreed. Mr Hanson was awarded damages for disrepair between December 2019 to March 2020 assessed at 60% of rent for the period, and damages after March 2020 at a four year period. 100% reduction in rent was considered appropriate which, combined with the uplift as per Simmons v Castle, resulted in damages of £57,142.80 being awarded.
Key takeaways
- A lack of formal consent to conduct works will not be a defence, where the landlord was aware of the intention of the tenant and accepted rent afterwards despite the breach.
- A refusal of access on one occasion by a tenant will be insufficient to operate as a defence to the landlord.
- The binary rule approach to damages will not always be adequate or justified and may lead to overcompensation for some tenants in certain cases.
- Where a property is considered unfit for human habitation, and the tenant is arguably receiving no benefit because, for example, the dwelling is small and the extent of the damages is severe, a notional reduction of rent approach to general damages may be appropriate.
- The approach to be adopted should be a claim for damages pursuant to the breach of implied covenant under Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
For more information about damp and disrepair get in touch with John Murray, or another of our expert Social Housing Lawyers.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
