The owners of two apartment blocks in Leeds have sued the construction firm who built a development after alleging it was not fit for habitation…

The owners claimed for £14 million while seeking for the external envelope of the building to be substantially rebuilt after a string of structural failures occurred with the 120 unit project.

The owners of the 120 apartments designed to provide high quality homes for young professionals, Rendlesham Estates Plc & Others, have sued Barr Limited, the construction firm that built the development between 2003 and 2006.

Barr, the Scotland-based construction firm indicated to the developers, City Wall Limited, that it was prepared to build the development for a price within its budget, and made it clear it would involve making “significant reductions to the quality of the finishes”, as well as proposing to use a steel frame instead of a concrete one.

This was accepted by the developers, however the project did not go smoothly. It was found that the construction firm had multiple problems with its subcontractors.

When the owners of the apartments moved in, they were “very taken aback” with what they discovered. The buildings were even described as looking like “council blocks from the 1960s” by one of Barr’s own witnesses. Many residents also found that the intercom system didn’t work properly, the walkways would flood in heavy rain and within two to three years, leaks above the walkways occurred and there was reports of mould and condensation – including in the shower cubicles.

There were allegations of defects by the developers, however in an adjudication in 2007, it resulted in their favour.

The owners have brought action against Barr, alleging that the apartments were “not fit for habitation when completed”. Not all the owners are bringing action against the construction firm.

While Barr at first denied responsibility for almost everything, in the most recent case it agreed it is liable for a few of the defects. It refuted the appropriate measure for damages.

Barr argued that as some of the owners are not claiming in the proceedings, they will not be entitled to any displacement costs, and therefore will unlikely be willing to vacate the apartments for several months when the remedial works are in place.

Barr’s case was that the claimant may claim for no more than his or her share of the cost of the works. It also claimed that the only claimants who could claim against defects in the roof are the owners of the penthouse apartments. Barr argued that the failure to achieve the standards of design required results from only a few leaseholders being able to recover a fraction of the cost necessary to make the repairs. 

The judge said: “I can see no reason why Parliament should have legislated for the unjust result for which Barr contends and I can find nothing in the wording of section 1 of the Act that compels such a conclusion. In my judgment the owner of an apartment which has been rendered unfit for habitation because of a defect in the common parts is entitled to the cost of repairing that defect, or at least to the cost of carrying out those repairs necessary to make his flat fit for habitation.”

The judge rejected Barr’s argument.

The judge concluded that in regards to those considered as claimants the construction firm was liable to the cost of remedying the water ingress in part of the North block car park.

Claimants were entitled to redress in line with the balcony elevations, the walkway elevations, the intercom system and external glazing, amongst others.

The judge also concluded: “I find that the claimant owners of each of the penthouse apartments are entitled to recover the costs of repairing the roof of the block in which the apartment is situated”.

“I have, unfortunately, had to leave a number of matters unresolved, but I have attempted in this judgment to provide guidance which ought to enable the parties to resolve those matters by agreement.”

“One important issue is the question of whether each of the other non-lead apartments in which similar external/internal defects have been recorded were unfit for habitation on completion in the light of them. I suspect that the answer in almost every case will be yes”.

The judge concluded that it may be necessary to have a further hearing to determine any outstanding issues.