Court allowed council to offset legal costs from tenant’s rent arrears
Sharpe Pritchard recently acted for a local Authority landlord in a case where they successfully ‘set off’ the tenant’s outstanding rent arrears against the tenant’s legal costs following settlement of a disrepair claim at Pre-Action Protocol stage. Angelica Botta and Simon Kiely explain how.
- Details
Case background
The tenant (T) brought a disrepair claim against the London Borough of Newham (LBN) which was settled in late 2022, on the basis that the LBN would pay compensation and legal costs, and complete the agreed works within 120 days.
The LBN paid the damages and legal costs, but was unable to complete the repairs in time.
The parties therefore agreed an additional settlement on the basis that the LBN would pay £250 in additional damages and £2,300 in additional legal costs.
Upon settlement, the LBN checked the T’s rent account and found that the arrears on the account were £1,448.17 of rent and £71in Court fees.
The total debt was therefore £1,519.17.
Following advice from Sharpe Pritchard, LBN exercised its right to set off the sums it was owed by T against the sums that it owed to T, and therefore applied the agreed £250 in damages to the debt on T’s rent account, and then applied £1,269.17 of the agreed £2,300 of legal costs against the remaining debt on the rent account, and then paid the balance of £1,030.83 to T’s legal representatives.
T’s legal representatives issued Part 8 proceedings claiming that the amount of £1,269.17 remained outstanding.
LBN then made an application to strike out T’s claim.
Application to strike out
LBN made an application to strike out T’s claim on the following grounds:
- No reasonable grounds for bringing the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
T was seeking to enforce a debt which had already been paid. LBN had credited T’s rent account with £1,519.17, and then paid the balance of £1,030.83 to their legal representatives.
- Abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b)
T was seeking to recover the debt twice, which would be manifestly unfair and an abuse of process.
LBN rightfully set off both the agreed damages and legal costs against the rent arrears in accordance with the tenancy terms and conditions, which provided that:
You must also pay the Council any rent, water service charges or any other charges you owe for any previous homes where you had a council tenancy or licence.
You must pay any debts you owe the Council as soon as the Council tell you about them, but the Council will enter into reasonable negotiations about repaying debts in line with the following understanding:
- The Council will negotiate repayments with people who owe the Council money.
- The Council will consider recommendations from money advisers when setting
- repayment amounts.
- The Council will change the standard repayment levels from time to time.
The Council may use any money the Council owe you to repay rent or other debts you owe the Council, as long as the Council has recorded the debt on your rent account or on any sub-accounts. (These are accounts linked to the main rent account which gives details of associated debts, such as court costs, debts from other tenancies and so on).
As such, it was a specific term of the tenancy agreement that LBN could use any money LBN owed T to repay rent or other debts that T owed LBN, as long as LBN recorded the debt on T’s rent account (or any sub-accounts).
LBN asserted that the debt therefore arose between T and their solicitors: LBN had no legal relationship with T’s solicitors and had no obligations towards them.
The Judgment
The Judge held that: “It is trite law that costs are part of T’s claim subject to any deductions or difficulties, as are [their] damages.
“It is also trite law that there is set-off in relation to rent arrears in any disrepair claim; tenants up and down the country will frequently seek to introduce disrepair specifically to offset rent arrears and reduce the arrears below the mandatory level or on any possession order granted.
“In this case it appears that the tenancy agreement specifically provides contractual set-off, which just adds to D’s position.”
The Judge decided that the Part 8 claim was “wholly misconceived” and there could be no recovery and therefore D’s application was allowed. The Judge further ordered T to pay LBN’s costs of the application.
Conclusion
This is an important case as it shows the possibility of deducting not only any agreed damages but also legal costs against tenants’ rent arrears, thereby mitigating the financial impact on landlords of disrepair settlements involving tenants who are in substantial rent arrears.
Key takeaways
- Ensure that tenancy agreements include a contractual set off clause as this will strengthen the landlord’s position.
- Inform the other side that compensation and legal costs will be offset against rent arrears prior to settlement.
Angelica Botta is a Junior Associate and Simon Kiely is a Partner at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.
Contact us today at enquiries@sharpepritchard.co.uk for expert advice and support with any area of tenancy agreements.
For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.
This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email enquiries@sharpepritchard.co.uk.
Click here to view our archived articles or search below.
|
OUR RECENT ARTICLES IPA guidance 2025: Managing PFI distress and preparing for expiry
Jul 03, 2025
Aanya Gujral and David Owens dive into the recent guidance published on managing the risks associated with Private Finance Initiative (“PFI”) projects.
Data (Use and Access) Act – Updating Data Protection Law and more
Jul 03, 2025
On the 19th June 2025, the Data Use and Access Bill (“DUA Bill”) received Royal Assent to become the Data Use and Access Act 2025 (“DUA Act”).
Modifying subsidies: What is permitted and what is not?
Jun 24, 2025
Beatrice Wood and Oliver Slater explore recent developments and discuss the process of awarding subsidies.
Getting new PPP right: Smarter tools for smarter infrastructure
Jun 24, 2025
Nicola Sumner, Steve Gummer and Roseanne Serrelli discuss the 'dos and don'ts' of Public-private Partnerships in their new form.
Zones/RABs and heat networks: The path to an investible infrastructure asset class?
Jun 19, 2025
The UK’s new heat network zoning framework (the outlines for which were drawn by the Energy Act 2023) is set to redefine how low‑carbon heating is delivered by creating geographic zones, where district heat networks are the mandated, optimal solution.
Partial debt guarantees- Reviving Investment in UK Water Infrastructure
Jun 17, 2025
Is it Time for a Public Sector Major Infrastructure Debt Guarantor?
Court gives clarity on consultations : R (The National Council for Civil Liberties) and others v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jun 10, 2025
Chloe Woodward and Joe Walker discuss a recent judgment on when engagement with third parties constitute a formal consultation and must therefore adhere to case law on being 'run fairly'.
URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2025] UKSC 21 – Supreme Court hands down significant judgment for the construction industry
May 27, 2025
Helen Arthur explores a recent Supreme Court judgment on building safety in high-rise buildings, explaining what the decision means for defects claims.
Catch me if you can: Local government blazes a trail in increased SME spending
May 21, 2025
Juli Lau and Natasha Barlow take readers through the report published by the BCC on procurement spending.
Changing Course: Navigating Variations Under JCT and NEC Contracts
May 21, 2025
Tiah Weekes explains the process of changes to contracts in the field of construction.
Lessons in public consultation: High Court finds failures in local authority’s consideration of consultation responses
May 21, 2025
George McLellan and Samuel Hart explore the High Court decision ruling that Lambeth Council broke the law in the process of establishing an LTN in the borough.
Allocating risk in amended JCT contracts: Lessons from John Sisk & Son Limited v Capital & Centric (Rose) Limited
May 12, 2025
David Owens and Elizabeth Withers explore recent developments in construction contract case law.
|
ABOUT SHARPE PRITCHARD We are a national firm of public law specialists, serving local authorities, other public sector organisations and registered social landlords, as well as commercial clients and the third sector. Our team advises on a wide range of public law matters, spanning electoral law, procurement, construction, infrastructure, data protection and information law, planning and dispute resolution, to name a few key specialisms. All public sector organisations have a route to instruct us through the various frameworks we are appointed to. To find out more about our services, please click here. |
OUR NEXT EVENT
|
OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |