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

This is the flat of Laura Mackie. Ms Mackie advances a small claim for £1,137.34 for damaged or destroyed contents, including plants, food and books particularly professional texts. Her evidence was that these were either saturated or affected by the dehumidifiers. These claims succeed.

At the time of the water ingress, Ms Mackie was away at her sister’s wedding and taken by surprise by a multitude of WhatsApp messages from the Property’s chat group. She moved out to stay at a friend’s property while the friend was away. She said that she was told by Click St Andrews that alternative accommodation would be arranged for her but nothing was done and she moved back on 26 September 2021. Her kitchen remained saturated.

Ms Mackie did accept that Click St Andrews had on occasion been refused access. She said that the leaseholders tried to co-operate but Click St Andrews was painting over wet walls and putting plasterboard over mould and it felt unsafe. She did not know what they were doing and wanted to safeguard her asset. As she said, the leaseholders wanted a dry building and the structure sorted out first.

Mr Emmett, in effect giving evidence, put to Ms Mackie that he had recorded a video call of a without prejudice discussion in October 2022 in which he tried to find a way forward. Leaving aside any issue as to Mr Emmett giving evidence or seeking to rely on without prejudice communications, Ms Mackie first said in response that it had felt as if it was an attempt to persuade the leaseholders not to maintain the freezing injunction. She then agreed that it had felt constructive but she did not want to negotiate without legal representation and after her previous experiences had no confidence in Click St Andrews. I deal with the alleged failure to mitigate below and this particular matter was not, in fact, relied on in that respect. But to the extent that it is part of the defendants’ case and that I can take it into consideration, it does not, in my view, demonstrate any failure to mitigate. Ms Mackie’s reservations were, in all the circumstances, entirely understandable and the stress that dealing with Click St Andrews – which she was doing on a daily basis – was palpable in her evidence.

Some of Ms Mackie’s evidence was leapt on by Mr Emmett as some kind of admission that the claim was being brought at the behest of solicitors and it was one of a number of occasions when Mr Emmett sought to criticise solicitors and portray the claim as “trumped up”. I make it very clear that I accept the evidence of Ms Mackie that the claim was forced on the claimants by the defendants and that there is no basis whatsoever to impugn the conduct of the claimants’ solicitors.

A claim for £1000 for distress and inconvenience was advanced for Ms Mackie and I also award that sum.