Share:

Matthew Lee successfully secures nearly £50,000 in damages for a tenant subjected to racial discrimination and harassment by her landlord

In Hickmet and Cheerz Express Limited v Dragos (Luton County Court, 19 January 2024),His Honour Judge Murch dismissed a claim for possession against the Defendant and awarded her damages of £49,534 for harassment, direct discrimination on grounds of race, and in respect of breach of the tenancy deposit legislation by her landlord. Matthew Lee acted for the Defendant.

Factual background and the proceedings

The Defendant had been an assured shorthold tenant at the property since 1 June 2017. Pursuant to that tenancy, the Defendant paid a deposit of £1,100. 

The Defendant was served with a notice of seeking possession on 4 November 2021, and possession proceedings were issued against her on 2 March 2022 in reliance on grounds 8, 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. The claim was issued in the name of the First Claimant, who was the sole director of the Second Claimant company who was actually the Defendant’s landlord. The Second Claimant was later added, though the First Claimant maintained that he had a ‘tenancy by estoppel’ until the date of the trial. 

The Defendant defended the claim on the basis that the notice of seeking possession was invalid. She also counterclaimed for harassment and race discrimination, and pursuant to section 214 of the Housing Act 1988 due to her landlord’s failure to protect her tenancy deposit.

The allegations of harassment included: attempts to pressure the Defendant into signing a tenancy agreement at a higher rent; attending the property unannounced and late at night and pressuring Miss Dragos to leave; threatening to enter the property by force and throw Miss Dragos and her two small children out on the street; shouting, yelling and swearing at the Defendant to pay her rent; and calling the Defendant a foreigner and telling her that no one would help her. 

The trial took place over 3 days and the judge sat with an Equality Act assessor. 

Judgment

In his judgment, His Honour Judge Murch held that:

  1. The section 8 notice was invalid on the basis that the identity of the landlord was unclear. No application to dispense with notice had been made and accordingly the possession claim fell to be dismissed.
  2. The Defendant had proved all nine of the allegations that were pleaded. The Claimants had directly discriminated against the Defendant in breach of s13 of the Equality Act 2010 and had engaged in unwanted conduced relating to the protected characteristic of race which created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for her in breach of s26 of the Equality Act 2010. Further, the Claimants had pursued a course of conduct which amounted to harassment for the purposes of s1-3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. 
  3. The Claimants had not returned the tenancy deposit to Miss Dragos on 19 February 2018 or at any other time. Applying Superstrike v Rodrigues, a penalty applied in relation to each tenancy that arose afresh since the deposit had never been protected.

And the judge ordered:

  1. Possession claim dismissed.
  2. Judgment for the Claimants for the rent arrears in the sum of £10,495 to be set off against the below;
  3. Judgment for the Defendant for £49,534 comprising:
    1. £32,000 for harassment and discrimination;
    2. £1,100 being the return of the deposit;
    3. £8,800 for failure to protect the deposit in relation to all four tenancies that had existed.[1]
    4. An additional amount of 10% on those damages pursuant to CPR 36.17(4)(d) given that Defendant had beat her Part 36 offer, amounting to £4190; and
    5. 5% interest on those damages pursuant to CPR 36.17(4)(a) given that Defendant had beat her Part 36 offer, amounting to a further £3,444 from the date the Part 36 offer lapsed. 
  4. The Claimants to pay the Defendant’s costs to be assessed if not agreed, including costs on the counterclaim on the indemnity basis and with 5% interest as a result of the Defendant beating her Part 36 offer. 

Judgment attached to both Claimants because the First Claimant was acting either in his own capacity or as the Second Claimant’s agent at all times. 

Matthew Lee, instructed by Harrow Law Centre appeared for Miss Dragos at final hearing, while Sarah Steinhardt acted for Miss Dragos in the proceedings before then.

[1] The judge awarded damages of 3 x the deposit for the initial tenancy on 1 June 2017, 1.5 x the deposit for the periodic tenancy that arose on 1 June 2018, 2 x the deposit for the written tenancy that was entered into on 1 August 2018, and 1.5 x the deposit in relation to the periodic tenancy that arose on 1 August 2019.