Catching up – housing conditions and illegal evictions

Ferko v Kumar & Kumar. Ealing Magistrates Court. 15 July 2025

This was the sentencing hearing in an Environmental Protection Act 1990 prosecution that we previously saw in on appeal in the High Court, overturning a comprehensively wrong decision by Ealing Magistrates. Following that judgment (and a hefty costs award against them for the appeal), Mr & Mrs Kumar pleaded guilty to a failure to abate a statutory nuisance.

At the sentencing hearing (note of judgment here), the Court found that it could not rely on the limited information provided by the Kumars as to their financial means. Awards of compensation for the damp and mould at the property for the period of 13 months were made at £16,250 – being 100% of the rent for the period – and an additional award of £500 per month for ‘pain and suffering’. This totalled £22,750. Credit for the guilty plea was reflected in not adding anything else in terms of penalty.

Costs of c. £73,000 were all reasonably incurred and awarded.

Our thanks to Michael Marsh-Hyde of One Pump Court and Zoheb Chaudhry at Alexander Shaw LLP for the details and note of Judgment.

Matthews v Nottingham City Council, County Court at Nottingham. 30 April 2025 (copy of Judgment here)

An appeal to a Circuit Judge of a first instance DDJ decision allocating a s.9A/s.11 claim for works and damages to the small claims track. The claim was for between £1,000 and £3,000 in damages, with works in excess of £1,000. (In fact, the claimant’s expert had estimated the cost of works to be  £1,683.60 inc VAT and the defendant’s expert £1,676.21 inc VAT).

The court had made a provisional allocation to small claims track.he claimant argued it was fast track as both works and damages were over £1000. The defendant argued that damages would be below £1000 and the cost of works “either be below or marginally above the £1,000 threshold” and it was not a complex matter. Further, there was no genuine for specific performance because the council had not deliberately refused to carry out works, its surveyor had recommended works.

The DDJ held that he had a discretion to allocate the case to small claims, despite CPR 26.9, and that there was no strong evidence that the claimant would lack legal representation if the claim was allocated to small claims.

The claimant appealed. HHJ Jonathan Owen allowed the appeal.

What this case required was the judge’s assessment of the realistic value of the case on the claimant’s case, not simply accepted every assertion made by the claimant as to that, but what the claimant might realistically hope to achieve if her evidence was accepted and, thereafter, a categorisation of the normal track.

Having done that, the judge’s role was then to analyse the factors under rule 26.13 to see whether that starting point of the normal track was the correct end result or whether a different result should be reached. Although the learned Deputy District Judge made certain comments about the value of the case and then made a number of valid points about the various factors referred to under Rule 26.13, the learned judge did not, in my view, adequately or at all follow that structured decision making process that is required in this case.

The only correct decision was that fast track was the normal track for the matter.

When considering that further question, in my judgment, the only correct conclusion ought to have been that the matter remain on the fast track. I do not think in this regard anyone really needs to go any further than the guidance given in the case of Lee and the Protocol to which Mr Hogan has referred me. The clear structure of the Protocol and, indeed, the allocation rules in housing disrepair claims is that if the claim is a justifiable claim which ought to be on the fast track, then costs should follow. It seems to me in a case like this where the normal track would be the fast track, if this claim is justifiable it would be quite unjustifiable, in my view, to allocate the matter to the small claims track and thereby remove the potential for recovery of costs which is contemplated by the Pre-action Protocol.

WLP Trading & Marketing Ltd v Albalous & Anor (2025) EWHC 3357 (Ch)

This was the defendant landlord’s appeal from the Judgment on the respondents’ claim for unlawful eviction, harassment and return of deposit.

A chronology is

i) Both R1 and R2 had been served with notices under s21 of the Housing Act 1988 prior to February 2022. The Judge noted that R2’s Section 21 Notice was expressed to expire in January 2022. He did not make a finding as to when R1’s Section 21 Notice expired (finding only that it was served before 28 February 2022). However, R2 accepts in his skeleton argument for this appeal that he received a Section 21 Notice in November 2021 that required him to vacate his flat by 4 January 2022.
ii) R1 was abroad in Syria to attend the funeral of his sister between 18 January 2022 and 18 February 2022.
iii) The Appellant started putting pressure on tenants of the Property generally to move out in early February 2022. It disconnected water and electricity on 4 February 2022. One of its agents assaulted a tenant other than R1 and R2 on 18 February 2022. By 19 February 2022, the Appellant had achieved its aim of removing all tenants from the Property and had stationed someone at the Property with a guard dog to prevent any tenant from re-entering.
iv) On 19 February 2022, having returned from Syria, R1 found the whole Property had been stripped and his flat had been emptied of all his personal property. R2’s personal property had also been removed by this date.
v) Substantial building works were commenced in February 2022 which eventually resulted in the Property being demolished.
vi) The Appellant took its actions described above despite the local authority warning its agent that a court order would be needed before it could obtain possession of the flats at the Property.
vii) On 25 February 2022, the Respondents issued their claim in the County Court at Central London. They served Particulars of Claim on 3 March 2022.
viii) On 28 February 2022, District Judge Worthington made a mandatory interim injunction that required the Appellant to let the Respondents back into occupation. The Appellant did not comply with that order.
ix) The Appellant only applied for possession of the Respondents’ flats in April 2022. The Respondents initially defended that application. However, eventually it became clear that the demolition of the Property was so far advanced that they could not go back into occupation and the Respondents withdrew their defences.
x) R1 was ordered to give possession on 6 September 2022. R2 was ordered to give possession on 16 August 2022.

The appellant/Defendant failed to comply with orders in proceedings, particularly with regard to disclosure, and then breached an unless order for disclosure, with the result that it was debarred from defending. An application for relief from sanction was dismissed.

At the first instance hearing (note of Judgment is here), the Judge described the appellant’s conduct as egregious, particularly given that they had been warned by the local authority that they would have to obtain possession orders, and  as “calculated to harass and intimidate both claimants to secure their leaving of the property and indeed to unlawfully evict them”.

While the appellant was debarred from defending, the Judge noted that the defence filed did not help it, as it alleged with no evidence at all that the tenants had surrendered their tenancies in January 2022.

On damages, the Judge accepted that previous case law gave a range of damages for unlawful eviction of between £250 and £380 per day (adjusted for inflation). In this case a rate of £375 per day was appropriate for the period up until the making of the possession orders.

On harassment, this was severe enough to fall into the middle Vento band of between £10,823.53 and £32,470.59, not being lengthy enough to fall into the top band. 

Aggravated damages awarded to reflect the aggravation of the injuries caused by the tort itself – here aggravation of pre-existing vulnerabilities. The appellant was motivated by profit and this could be taken into account.

Exemplary damages were awarded. There was little evidence before the court as to the likely profit to be gained by the appellant’s conduct, but the development was five times the size of the demolished property, which had itself been bought for £2.14 million in 2018, and the development had a Community Infrastructure Levy of £500,000, suggesting the development value at £10 million or more. Exemplary damages of £20,000 per claimant ordered.

Special damages on ‘eminently reasonable’ schedules award in full. 

The general damages, aggravated and exemplary damages were then all subject to the Simmons v Castle 10% uplift.

Interest of 4.5% on general and aggravated damages and the deposits from the issue of the claim.

Indemnity costs as the appellant/defendant’s conduct in the proceedings was outside the norm and disgraceful.

On appeal, the appellant was almost entirely unsuccessful. The appeal was either an attempt to bring in evidence and argument that the appellant had been debarred from making, or a brand assertion that the amounts were too high. The awards were reasoned and within the first instance Judge’s discretion.

Save for an adjustment to general damages for one of the claimants, where it was admitted that the calculation of the number of relevant days was wrong, the appeal was dismissed.

This is likely to be the highest award for illegal eviction yet.

Our thanks to Michael Hyde-Marsh on One Pump Court for the note of the first instance Judgment.

HLS Leisure Ltd v Darville and Son Ltd (2025) EWHC 1884 (Ch)

An appeal in a nuisance case concerning noise and hygiene nuisance caused by ventilation ducting from a fast food takeaway. At first instance, the Circuit Judge had held that the defendant, the owner of the property, was not liable as the ducting formed part of a large fixture which was part of the demise to the takeaway’s tenant under the lease. The landlord was not liable without active or direct participation in the nuisance.

The claimant appealed arguing that the ventilation was not part of the demise to the tenant. The appealed was dismissed. On the wording of the lease, the ducting was part of the demise as being a fixture ‘in or on the land’. In addition, the ducting was part of an extractor system which was in large part within the demised land.