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

Having outlined the claimants’ case above, I return to this case in more detail.

As originally constructed in about 2000, the Property comprised 14 flats over 4 storeys with a pitched roof. The Works involved the addition of a fifth storey with 3 additional flats (nos. 15,16 and 17) which were to be above and adjoining the flats on the 4^th floor (nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14). The flats themselves were to be comprised of modular units.

To construct the further storey, the pitched roof had to be removed and replaced with a flat roof and steel sub-frame which was to support the further flats. During construction, the steel sub-frame formed part of a crash deck and the modules were intended to sit about 300mm above the deck. The steel sub-frame also acted to transfer weight and was supported on the existing loadbearing masonry walls of the property, some of which were extended upwards to support the sub-frame.

At the beginning of the week commencing 19 July 2021, there was still in place a pitched corrugated tin roof supported on scaffolding – referred to as “the tin hat roof” – which was temporarily in place to protect the rooftop works. That tin hat roof had obviously to be removed to install the modules that would create the fifth storey.

The claimants’ pleaded case was that the process of removing the tin roof, installing that modular units and weatherproofing the roof would take 7 days. The Defence states that the removal of the tin hat roof commenced on 19 July and was carried out on 19 and 20 July. The defendants’ case was that these works would take 2 days using a crane, although Mr Emmett said in court, as submission, that the removal was carried out by scaffolders and took 5 days.

In an e-mail dated 13 July 2021, Mr Tyrell, the Design and Construction Manager for the project, had explained to the residents that Click St Andrews intended to install the modules over the weekend of 24 and 25 July. In order to do that, they needed to have obtained a road closure for a crane which would lift the modules into place. The e-mail said that they had applied for a second closure as well on a “back up weekend in case of high winds”.

As I have indicated, it was not entirely clear on the evidence when the tin hat roof was removed and/or when that process was complete. There were competing versions of how this was done and how long it had taken. But it was necessarily removed by the weekend of 24 and 25 July in order to place the modular units.

During the week of 19 July 2021, there were yellow and amber weather warnings for rainfall and thunderstorms in London at the weekend (that is 24 and 25 July). A yellow thunderstorm warning was issued on 19 July for London and the southeast of England although the storms were expected to die out in the evening. There was a further yellow warning on 20 July 2021.

On Wednesday 21 July, the Met Office issued a yellow weather warning for “heavy thundery showers” across the South East of England on 24 and 25 July. The warning said that heavy, thundery showers were likely to break out by day, particularly on Sunday “when these could be widespread and locally torrential”. Lightning and hail were also expected.

On Friday 23 July, the Met Office issued another yellow weather warning. This warned of a renewed threat of thunderstorms and torrential rain on Friday evening until Saturday evening. A further yellow warning, also issued on Friday, warned of heavy showers and thunderstorms on Sunday.

Click St Andrews commenced the crane lift on Sunday 25 July 2021. At 2.33pm that day, an amber warning was issued for the period from the issue of the warning to 7.00pm that day. Heavy showers and thunderstorms had formed in a line stretching northeast from Surrey towards western Essex and it was predicted that each shower could bring 20-40mm of rainfall.

On the afternoon of 25 July there was, in fact, torrential rain at the site.

Records (measured at Deptford approximately 2 miles from the property) show that between 19 and 23 July, there was no rainfall; on 24 July there was little daily rainfall (0.03mm); but on 25 July there was daily rainfall of 21.6mm. There was further rainfall in the following two weeks including 22.9mm on 28 July 2021 and 48.5mm on 7 August 2021.

The installation was not completed on 25 July. On 26 July, Click St Andrews wrote to the leaseholders accepting that the rainfall had completely overwhelmed the waterproofing in place and that “had we been aware of this level of rain we would not have removed the roof.”

In November 2021, Thames Water published a report into the storm on 25 July 2021 which included the following:

“On the morning of 21 July, the Met Office issues a “yellow” warning for the following Sunday. Again, this warning covered all of the south east region. In the days leading up to the storm, the Met Office issued further warnings about the severity of the storm, forecasting a low likelihood of extreme rainfall levels – again, around 25mm was still considered the most likely with a “low likelihood of significant impacts”.

On the afternoon of 25 July (during the storm), the Met Office upgraded its weather warning to “amber” due to heavy rain showers and thunderstorms from northeast Surrey to western Essex. More than a month’s rain fell in a few hours … The Met Office has confirmed a return period of 118 years for the amount of rain that fell in one hour.”

There was a further crane lift on 7 August 2021. Video recordings show a module being craned into position during heavy rain. The claimants contend that there was further water ingress reported on multiple dates but particularly on 7 August 2021 and 14 September 2021 and this caused further substantial damage.

The claimants’ case can be shortly put. During the carrying out of these works in these weather conditions there was water ingress to the Property which caused significant damage and caused a number of the leaseholders to have to leave their homes. Obviously the flats at higher levels near the exposed roof were more affected than those below. That water ingress was the consequence of the provision of inadequate protection at roof level.