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

This is the flat of Noel Lagrenee who gave evidence. The flat is, in fact, owned by Pizarras Y Baldosas SA, the 4^th claimant, a family company of which Mr Lagrenee is a director. At the time of the water ingress, the flat was occupied by tenants. Mr Lagrenee’s evidence was that, as a result of the water ingress, the tenants had to move out and stay in a hotel which Click St Andrews promised to pay for but did not. Rent was waived in compensation for the tenants’ losses and additional costs. Thereafter, when the tenants moved back in, they were given a 10% discount on the rent in compensation for the condition of flat. Thereafter some repainting was done to make the flat more presentable.

The claim is for £703.85 in respect of hotel costs; £2,606.40 in respect of compensation to the tenants; £3,680.00 in respect of the discounted rent; and £2,500 in respect of remedial works. None of these figures is supported by documentary evidence. However, I accept the evidence of Mr Lagrenee which was not challenged and award these sums. Mr Lagrenee also confirmed that Click St Andrews requested access and that was allowed.

In his first statement dated 5 February 2023, Mr Lagrenee also stated that there would be further losses because a new tenant had also required a reduction in rent of £200 per month because of the condition of the flat and the common parts. I am not been able to identify any evidence which crystallises this claim. It does not seem to have been referred to counsel’s table of historic losses or Mr Daly’s Appendix 7 but, if the relevant evidence is identified, it may be included in the final order.

It was submitted that a sum of £1000 should be awarded for distress and inconvenience and there was evidence from Mr Lagrenee of the inconvenience to him and his wife caused by dealing with the damage. However, the claimant is a company and I cannot see that an award to a company can properly be made.