Damages included £47,000 s28 damages for assured tenant, not reduced by tenant’s behaviour where this was not the cause of the eviction
Mr Cashmere was granted an assured tenancy of a flat in the Docklands in 1990. In 2000, Ms Downing bought the flat as the bare trustee for Mr Walsh. Ms Veale was Ms Downing’s mother and a business associate of Mr Walsh. Between 2000 and 2003, the flat suffered from minor disrepair (a light pendant, windows and a storage heater in the living room did not work). In 2003, the second storage heater in the living room also became inoperative. In 2004, the bathroom was refurbished by Ms Downing, but thereafter the handle on the cistern kept breaking and the original vinyl flooring in the bathroom was not replaced. In June 2007, Mr Cashmere began to spend more time at his girlfriend’s home because of the defects to the flat. He was, nevertheless, still in occupation. Ms Downing and Ms Veale promised that they would carry out repairs. On 2 December 2007, they asked Mr Cashmere to move out for the duration of works. Mr Cashmere moved out and allowed the landlord to clear the flat of his belongings, which were piled in the corridor. The works were completed within a week; they included a new front door and a new lock. When Mr Cashmere asked for a copy of the keys so that he could move back in, he was told he could not have them as there were rent arrears. He made several attempts to call the defendants and went to their home but was sent away by Ms Veale. He contacted solicitors who wrote pre-action letters to each of the defendants demanding that he be allowed to return and that his belongings be restored to him. Mr Walsh indicated that he was now the owner of the flat and that he had a new tenant in the flat. The annual rent was £10,920.
In a claim for damages, HHJ Cowell found the defendants had duped Mr Cashmere into handing over the flat to them on the pretext of repairs being required and that although works had been done, there had never been any intention to return the keys to Mr Cashmere. He awarded damages against:
•Mr Walsh (as the owner of the premises) in the sum of £73,215;
•Ms Downing (as the co-owner until just before the eviction and as Mr Walsh’s agent at all material times) in the sum of £33,715; and
•Ms Veale (as an agent of Mr Walsh with a controlling influence over the others) in the sum of £24,515.
The awards were calculated as follows:
•£9,200 for disrepair. Damages of £1,200 for the first three years (ie, £400 per annum (four per cent of the rent)) and damages of £8,000 for the remaining five years (about 15 per cent of the rent).
•£47,000 against Mr Walsh under Housing Act 1988 ss27 and 28. He had become the legal owner by the time of the unlawful eviction. Although Mr Cashmere had previously caused noise nuisance to his neighbours and had ‘historic’ arrears of about £7,000, it was plain from the evidence that neither of these factors was the reason for the eviction. Although the defendants had chased housing benefit (or assisted in doing the same) the evidence showed that it was not until the day on which they refused to hand over the keys to the flat that they first required Mr Cashmere to make any payments himself. The true reason for the eviction was the desire to sell the flat which was achieved following the unlawful eviction. It followed that no reduction was appropriate under section 27(7)(a) either by reason of the noise nuisance or by reason of the arrears.
•£8,000 against Ms Downing and Ms Veale for their part in the deception and the refusal to hand over keys, which amounted to a trespass. Mr Cashmere had taken over 18 months to find suitable alternative accommodation.
•£500 for the failure to return a deposit.
•£6,515 against Mr Walsh and Ms Downing for the loss of Mr Cashmere’s belongings which were never recovered.
•Aggravated damages of £10,000 against all three defendants.
Mr Cashmere had been duped into handing over access to the flat. He had even assisted in his own eviction by helping to store belongings in the communal corridor, a fact which the judge described as the consequence of an appalling piece of treachery. When told he could not have the keys, his belongings were left outside and were eventually dumped by the defendants. Mr Cashmere had no opportunity to recover them as he was never told where they were. In subsequent correspondence with Mr Cashmere’s solicitors, the defendants, who were plainly acting together, had lied about the whereabouts of his belongings, had denied the eviction and had denied control over the flat at the relevant time. They had also lied about a new tenant being put into the flat after the eviction, a lie that caused Mr Cashmere’s advisers not to pursue an injunction for reinstatement to the flat.