Council landlords in breach of statutory repairing obligations – County court judge awarding general damages for discomfort and inconvenience but refusing to make separate assessment of diminution in value of tenant’s interest in property – Tenant’s appeal dismissed
In proceedings brought in Manchester County Court the appellant council tenant established that the respondent council had, over the period between October 1994 to July 1997, been in breach of their repairing obligations both under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. The defects complained of included a partially collapsed external wall, rotting window frames, inadequate damp-proofing, and poor drainage leading to rat infestation. At all material times the tenant remained in the house with her two children. Having awarded each child a sum of £2,000, and having made an award of £780 in respect of damage to curtains, carpets and furniture, the judge proceeded to award the tenant a sum of £3,500 as general damages to compensate her for the discomfort and distress suffered as a result of the defects and for the further discomfort while remedial works were being carried out. In making that award, the judge expressly refrained from including, under the head of general damages, a sum to reflect a diminution (as a result of the disrepair) in the value of the tenancy. The tenant appealed, contending that the diminution element had been wrongly excluded.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. For the period during which a tenant remained in occupation, notwithstanding the landlord’s breach, the loss to him requiring compensation was the loss of comfort and convenience which resulted; and the expression “difference in value to the tenant of the premises” (as used by Bankes LJ in Hewitt v Rowlands (1924) 93 LJKB 1080, at p1082) was to be understood accordingly: see per Stephenson LJ and Griffiths LJ in Calabar Properties Ltd v Stitcher [1983] 2 EGLR 46 at pp48-50. The sum could be ascertained in terms of a notional reduction of rent, or as a global figure for discomfort and inconvenience, or as a mixture of the two elements; but the courts were not bound to make separate assessments under each head, nor was it appropriate to adduce expert valuation evidence.
2. A judge seeking to assess the monetary compensation to be awarded for discomfort and inconvenience on a global basis would be well advised to cross-check his prospective award by reference to the rent payable for the relevant period, in order to avoid over or underassessments through failure to give proper consideration to the period of the landlord’s breach or the nature of the property.
3. Different considerations arose where the tenant was forced by the landlord’s breach to sell or sublet, in which case the tenant could recover for the resulting diminution of the price or recoverable rent: see Calabar (supra).
Jan Luba and Peter Buckley (instructed by Clifford Chapman & Co, of Manchester) appeared for the appellant; Ian Leeming QC and Robert Darbyshire (instructed by the solicitor to Manchester City Council) appeared for the respondents.