Surrey
Mediation

This was a workplace dispute. It concerned an  experienced middle aged employee, and a direct report who was a young person in their 20s who had a very laid back attitude.

The senior member of staff had a very organised approach to work and strong work ethic, the junior, not so much. This led rise to several issues. The mediation lasted eight hours and settled. 

The Claimant was the Tenant of a property leased to her by the Defendant who was a registered Housing Association. By a written agreement dated in 2013 and subsequent to that a Deed of Assignment dated in 2014, the Defendant entered into a tenancy agreement with the Claimant to reside at the Property as a dwelling house. (“the AST”). At all material times the Defendant was the freehold owner of the Property. The Defendant was in possession of a copy of the AST having been a party to it.

Further or in the alternative, the Claimant relied upon the Implied Terms of the Assured Tenancy Agreement pursuant to Section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and the statutory duties imposed by virtue imposed by virtue of Section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. The duty under the 1972 Act imposed a duty on the Defendant to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure the Claimant and any visitors to the Property should be reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage due to the defective state of the Property. There is also a duty to keep the Property in repair under the 1972 Act.

By virtue of Section 9a of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, there was an implied term within the Assured Tenancy Agreement that the Property will be and remain for the duration of the Assured Tenancy Agreement fit for human habitation, having regard to those matters set out within Section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (as amended).

Further or in the alternative, it was an implied term of the AST that the Defendant would:

• Carry out all repairs to the Property with reasonable care and skill; and
• Carry out all repairs within a reasonable period of time after having received notice of the same.
• At all material times afford all tenants and lawful occupants of the Property, quiet enjoyment of the Property.
• An implied term that the Defendant would carry out the works of repair or improvement in a proper manner and with proper materials.
• An implied term that the Defendant would make good and would redecorate on completing all work done further to its obligations and duties.
• An implied duty that any repairs would be carried out in accordance with the Homes (Fit for Human Habitation) Act 2018 (Section 9a) and the said Property would be kept in a condition in accordance with the Act (applies to all tenancies after 20 March 2020, regardless of the date that the tenancy was entered into).
• For the avoidance of doubt the Claimant contended that a reasonable period for routine repair is within 30 days unless urgent repairs are required such as a leak, repairs which will cause injury to persons or damage to the Property or loss of heating / hot water.
• The Defendant has been in breach of the aforesaid express and implied terms and duties contained within the Assured Tenancy Agreement. Further and in the alternative by reason of the aforesaid breaches and the condition of the Property, the Defendant has permitted, caused and/or adopted a nuisance. The Claimant will relies upon the Expert’s Housing Disrepair Report of Mr F dated 29 December 2022 and the Scott Schedule attached to it.

The Defendant had complained of no heating in the Living Room or Hallway since 2015 when storage heaters were removed but not replaced. Adequate heating facilities were not provided. Actionable under Section 9a and 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and The Homes (Fit for Human Habitation) Act 2018.

There was concern that the DEPC rating banding of the Property changed from B and F to Band D based upon the Claimant believing that the Defendant provided incorrect information, such as the previous presence and then subsequent removal of the Cavity Wall Insulation.

A large damp patch in the main “Master” bedroom which was approximately 3 feet x 2 feet in size, with bubbling on the walls in the bedroom and the air smelling of damp. Actionable under Section 9a and 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and The Homes (Fit for Human Habitation) Act 2018.

The Defendant had notice of the aforesaid breaches. As a result of the Defendant’s aforesaid breach, the Claimant has suffered loss of use, loss of enjoyment, inconvenience and embarrassment, and claims damages for the same.

This mediation took three hours and was via the zoom video platform.

This was a boundary dispute. No.19 and No.17 were detached, residential properties in Birmingham and between the two properties was a passageway. The Claimants claimed that they have always had exclusive use of this passageway and it forms part of their land. They claimed there was no access to this area from No17 from the front where it is blocked by a wooden lateral fence and to the rear this had always been blocked by a privet hedge and later a pyracantha bush then by the Defendants’ fence.

The Claimants claimed that the Defendants had never been into this area and on the occasions the previous neighbour came into the area it was with their permission.

The Defendants alleged that the legal boundary between the properties was some distance from their wall sufficient to leave a gap which would allow them access from their front garden to their rear garden. The Defendants alleged that their access to the passageway had been via a “removeable wooden partition” and they alleged that this had not been present previously.

Adverse possession, trespass, criminal damage, encroachment, police involvement the list was endless. In any event, when a court is considering boundaries then, as His Honour Judge Barker KC put it in Acco Properties Limited v Severn [2011] EWHC 1362:

“When bearing these principles in mind as the platform on which to place and examine the facts, a judge should have regard to three further important yardsticks or rules of thumb. These are: (1) when considering any acquisition of property, it is vital to consider what a reasonable layman would think he was buying; (2) every case turns on its own facts; and (3) the task of the court is to assess all available and admissible material in arriving at its answer, and then to achieve the correct answer.”

The mediation took place via Zoom, and lasted five hours.

The Agency approached owners of three properties along a particular Road to open negotiations to purchase their houses.  The Agency had earmarked the area around XXX for a major flood alleviation scheme having embarked on what is known as the Lower Thames Strategy.  This was a project to implement a flood alleviation scheme for the Lower Thames; essentially, a sequence of three flood diversion channels to convey flood water whilst the River Thames is in flood, together with associated civil works downstream.

Mrs A was the only home owner to agree to sell her Property.  Negotiations on the terms of the sale started in September 2009.  Valuations of the Property were prepared by two firms of surveyors, Knight Frank at £1M and later by Bruton Knowles (4^th December 2009) at £1.25M.  The Property was sold to the Agency on 6^th August 2010 for £1.25M.

A dispute arose between the Agency and Mrs A following the sale over two matters: the cost of the fixtures and fittings and the mooring fees for Mrs’s A’s boat. It was alleged the Agency owed an indeterminate sum for fixtures and fittings left at the property.  It was the Agency’s case that the cost of fixtures and fittings were included in the disturbance payment included in the contract. 

Mooring fees, the Property was a riverside property.  Mrs A owned a boat which she moored at the Property and, therefore, she did not have to pay mooring fees.  Since she no longer has private moorings she claimed the cost of having to moor her boat at a marina which charged her rent. For a period of 10 years £49,254.47 plus an unquantified element for travelling expenses was claimed.

The mediation lasted 4 hours, was in person and settled.