HT-2022-000311 & HT-2022-000254 - [2024] EWHC 3179 (TCC)

This is the flat of Kamala Buchholz. Ms Buchholz makes by far the largest claim.

Ms Buchholz has been out of her flat (which is on the top floor) since the water ingress. Her evidence was that Click St Andrews had keys to access her flat between July 2021 and October 2022 except for a period of 2 weeks. To the extent that any remedial work had been done, Click St Andrews had stripped out the bathroom walls and floors, put plasterboard in place and painted the kitchen. No bathroom or kitchen had been fitted.

The largest element of her claim, therefore, was for £179,050.89 for alternative accommodation. Mr Daly regarded this cost as partially substantiated on the basis that he had seen invoices for these costs but not an Excel spreadsheet referred to. There was no challenge to the reasonableness of this sum over a lengthy period and I accept Ms Buchholz’s evidence that these are the costs she has incurred and award them by way of damages.

Ms Buchholz also claims:

I do not take the same view in relation to the claim for dry cleaning costs in the amount of £6633.76. There was little explanation from Ms Buchholz for these costs. In her first statement, she made reference to having to move into a hotel and, therefore, having to pay for laundry. In her second statement, she placed these costs in a table for costs which she would not have incurred if she had remained living in her flat. Whilst I can see that some modest costs may have been incurred when staying in a hotel, there is no explanation for this substantial sum being incurred. I award her an estimated sum of £1,000.

I do not consider that I have sufficient evidence to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any cost of time off work was caused by the water ingress. The only evidence is a screen shot of an undated portal that shows the cost to Ms Buchholz in the sum claimed. There is no further explanation or evidence in relation to that time off or the incurred cost.

Ms Buchholz claims a sum of over £11k for therapy. I accept that, as the owner of one of the top floor flats who has been out for occupation for over 3 years, she is entitled to higher level of damages for distress and inconvenience than others may be but, in my judgment, it goes too far – a least without any evidence of the impact on her mental health – to say that there is a causal link between the water ingress and therapy. I award, however, £7,500 for distress and inconvenience.

There is a small sum of £750 in respect of the cancellation of a civil wedding ceremony. No causal link is evidenced and this small claim fails.

Lastly, Ms Buchholz claims £2,078.58. As I understand her evidence, she had to make payments on her bank overdraft as she went into overdraft as a result of the other losses she was incurring. Mr Daly has identified a statement for £1,067 and that is the sum I award.

I should add two things. Firstly, in Mr Daly’s Appendix 7, he shows a claim for distress and anxiety which is greater than the cost of therapy claimed and he shows a claim for legal costs which will be dealt with as costs. Secondly, Mr Emmett’s questioning of Ms Buchholz was intended to suggest that, by obtaining the freezing injunction, the leaseholders had inhibited Click St Andrews from carrying out remedial works and, in particular, had objected to Click St Andrews releasing funds to carry out remedial works. Ms Buchholz rightly pointed out that Click St Andrews had had her keys for many months before the freezing injunction was obtained. In any case, this was a matter for the court. Mr Emmett suggested that the monies to fit the kitchen were not released until the judge allowed it and Ms Buchholz replied that all she knew was that the kitchen had not been fitted. Whatever the point was that was being made, it did not assist the defendants and, if anything, the evidence that these works had still not been done made their position worse.