Arbitration

Summary

The arbitration case involves a dispute between Mr. James Tennant, a bakery owner, and his landlord, Ms. Pauline Landlord, over damage caused by leaking water pipes in the bakery. The claimant argues that the landlord breached the lease and statutory repair obligations, causing business losses and property damage. The respondent counters that the agreement was a 'license to occupy,' not a lease, and that the claimant’s refusal to allow timely repairs led to additional costs. The arbitrator will review the evidence and arguments to make a legally binding judgment on the matter.

Takeaways

• 😀 The arbitrator, Jonas Andrews, introduces himself and explains that his decision will be legally binding for both parties involved in the arbitration proceedings.
• 😀 The hearing concerns a dispute between claimant James Tennant, the owner of a bakery, and respondent Pauline, the landlord of the bakery's premises.
• 😀 The claimant, James Tennant, claims that the respondent breached multiple sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act as well as clauses in their lease agreement.
• 😀 The claimant operates a bakery on premises owned by the respondent, and the lease agreement is for one year with two prior renewals.
• 😀 The claimant reported leaking pipes in the bakery on September 15th and provided photographic evidence of the damage caused, which is included in Exhibit B.
• 😀 The claimant alleges that the respondent failed to address the leaking pipes for two weeks, violating the repair obligations under the lease and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, particularly Clause 2.2.
• 😀 The claimant claims the respondent's failure to address the issue in a timely manner made the premises unsafe and uninhabitable, resulting in a health and safety violation due to water near electricity and one oven being turned off.
• 😀 The claimant also argues that the respondent did not provide 24 hours' notice before entering the premises, which is required by law under the terms of the lease.
• 😀 The claimant seeks monetary damages for business loss, as the bakery could not fulfill large orders, as well as for damage to property (e.g., carpet tiles, damp walls), totaling £5,400.
• 😀 The respondent argues that the agreement was not a lease but a license to occupy, as evidenced by Clause 5 of the contract, which grants the claimant a non-exclusive, short-term right to use the property for business purposes.
• 😀 The respondent asserts that the claimant did not have exclusive possession of the premises and was therefore in breach of the agreement for turning away the workmen who were sent to repair the pipes.
• 😀 The respondent claims that the claimant's breach resulted in additional costs for repairs, totaling £2,100, which is detailed in Exhibit D.

Q & A

What is the primary legal issue in this arbitration case?

The primary legal issue is the classification of the agreement between the claimant and the respondent. The claimant argues it is a lease, while the respondent claims it is a license to occupy, which affects the landlord's legal obligations.

What is the claimant's main argument in this case?

The claimant argues that the respondent, as the landlord, breached both the landlord-tenant lease agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 by failing to repair leaking water pipes in a timely manner, which caused damage to the bakery and led to business loss.

What evidence does the claimant provide to support their case?

The claimant presents photographic evidence of the leaking pipes and the resulting damage, as well as a damages form listing the costs associated with the business losses and property damage.

What breach of the lease agreement does the claimant allege?

The claimant alleges that the respondent breached Clause 2.2 of the lease agreement, which outlines the landlord's responsibility to keep the property's installations, including water supply, in good repair and working order.

What health and safety concern does the claimant raise?

The claimant raises a health and safety concern due to water dripping near electricity, which made the premises unsafe, forcing the claimant to shut off one of the bakery's ovens.

What statutory obligation does the claimant claim the respondent violated?

The claimant claims that the respondent violated Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which requires landlords to maintain essential services, such as water, and to make necessary repairs in a reasonable time frame.

How does the respondent counter the claimant's argument?

The respondent argues that the agreement between the parties was a license to occupy rather than a lease, meaning the claimant did not have exclusive possession of the premises and could not legally refuse access for repairs. The respondent also claims the claimant's refusal to allow repairs led to additional costs.

What does the respondent present as evidence for their position?

The respondent presents Clause 5 of the agreement, which they claim indicates an intent to create a license to occupy arrangement rather than a lease, and a schedule of costs showing the expenses incurred due to the claimant's refusal to allow prompt repairs.

What is the total amount of damages the claimant is seeking?

The claimant is seeking damages totaling £5,400, which covers lost business and property damage, including carpet tiles and damp walls.

What total amount does the respondent claim for costs incurred?

The respondent claims a total of £2,100 in costs, which includes the expenses for the workmen's repairs and additional costs incurred due to the claimant's refusal to allow timely access.