Laying new foundations for housing disrepair cases

In the case of Dezitter v Hammersmith & Fulham Homes (Central London County Court, 7 November 2023), the court considered the appropriate level of damages to award when a property was deemed unfit for human habitation under the homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018.

While the decision in this case is non-binding, this was the first case since the enactment of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 to test how the courts will assess general damages in cases involving fitness for human habitation.

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018

The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 amended the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 placing an obligation on landlords of residential accommodation to keep a property in a state that is suitable for human habitation.

The Act came into force on March 20, 2020 and applies retrospectively to all residential tenancy agreements.

How are damages valued in housing disrepair claims?

Compensation in housing conditions claims is determined based on inconvenience caused by the disrepair and the loss of enjoyment of the property.

There are three main methods of calculating damages:

1. Global award for inconvenience and discomfort caused by the disrepair
2. A notional reduction in rent
3. A combination of the global award and notional reduction methods.

The most used method adopted by the courts is the notional reduction method, whereby the court will award a percentage of the rent paid for the period that a property is found to be in disrepair. The percentage of rent awarded depends on the severity of the disrepair, typically ranging from 10% to 40%.

The facts of the case

Ms Dezitter, the claimant, had been a secure tenant of Hammersmith & Fulham Homes since May 2010. In 2023 she brought a claim for disrepair, citing disrepair issues she had complained about since moving into the property. The disrepair included cracks to the walls and ceilings, ill-fitting and draughty doors and windows, damp and mould, watermarks to the ceiling, lights hanging from the ceiling and a frequently loss pressure to the boiler.

There was evidence of Ms Dezitter complaining about the disrepair from the start of her tenancy. As Hammersmith & Fulham Homes had not raised a limitation defence, the entire period from the start of the tenancy was open to consideration from the court.

In considering the case, DDJ Harris submitted that damages should be awarded based on a percentage rent deduction and found that the disrepair fell into three periods:

1. June 14, 2010 to December 24, 2013: The date from when Ms. Dezitter had been complaining about the disrepair until the date when the condition of the property deteriorated further due to a water leak from the roof. For this period, DDJ Harris considered a percentage deduction of 35% of the rent appropriate. This amounted to £8,000.