UK Construction and Law

Abatement of rent and damages for inconvenience are separate remedies, and a 9,804 pound disrepair award that ran them together is set aside

By Staff Writer  |  1 September 2026

A landlord challenged an award of 6,804.50 pounds in rent abatement and 3,000 pounds for inconvenience arising from bifold doors, a boiler and decking over a 32 month tenancy. The Upper Tribunal for Scotland held that the first instance tribunal had not made findings on what was wrong, when it was reported or what a reasonable time to repair would have been, and had risked counting the same loss twice.

Disrepair claims look small and settle quietly. This one produced a decision on 28 August that is worth the attention of anyone who has to quantify the cost of works that were not done, because it sets out what a fact finder must actually find before it puts a number on the loss.

The tenants claimed 24,000 pounds for alleged disrepair across a 32 month tenancy, listing ten items: bifold doors, a gas boiler, a washing machine, outdoor decking, a wood burner, carbon monoxide monitors, smoke alarms, electrical installations, cleanliness at check in and a bedroom water leak. Five items were upheld. Every claim for money the tenants had actually spent was refused. The tribunal awarded 6,804.50 pounds by way of abatement of rent across the upheld items, and a single global sum of 3,000 pounds for inconvenience.

Two remedies, one number

The appeal decision separates the concepts. Abatement of rent is an equitable remedy resting on partial failure of consideration: the tenant should not pay for something never enjoyed. Damages are compensatory and require a proven breach of an obligation and loss flowing from it. In practice an assessment under one heading may be a fair measure of the other, which is exactly why a tribunal awarding both has to show its working.

When a tribunal considers also whether a separate award should be made in respect of inconvenience, it is also important that it clearly and accurately sets out those factors which go towards the assessment of the inconvenience caused and demonstrate that the factors going toward abatement on the one hand and inconvenience on the other are distinguished, so as to avoid the risk of double counting.

Sheriff O'Carroll

That had not happened. The 3,000 pounds appeared to take in stress from complaints the tribunal had itself rejected, including electrical installations, lighting and cleanliness at the start. Inconvenience must relate to work not done in breach of a repairing duty. Repairs carried out in time do not found an award, and neither do complaints that were never made out.

The findings that were missing

On the bifold doors the only finding was that they were not fully wind and watertight throughout the tenancy. There was nothing on what was wrong with them, how often water came in, what was needed to put them right, when the fault was reported or what a reasonable period to repair would have been. That mattered because the abatement for the doors was 5 per cent of rent over 32 months, or 2,480 pounds, about a third of the whole abatement figure. The decking fared worse: the single finding was that it was not in a reasonable condition at the start, and it carried the same 2,480 pounds.

The boiler produced a sharper point. The parties had already agreed a 25 per cent rent reduction for three months, worth about 1,162 pounds, to compensate for that fault. The tribunal then awarded a further 1,162.50 pounds for the same disrepair without explaining on what basis it could reopen an agreement the parties had freely made.

A finding that the carbon monoxide monitors breached the regulations was also set aside. The decision did not explain where the finding came from, it treated guidance as though it were regulations, and it named neither. The point had fed into the size of the inconvenience award.

The wider reading

A landlord's repairing obligation is not absolute. Liability attaches where a defect has been notified, or the landlord has otherwise become aware of it, and has not been put right within a reasonable time. What is reasonable takes in the nature of the defect, its effect on the occupier, how easily the work can be specified, and how hard it is to get the materials and the contractors. None of that can be assessed without findings about dates and effects.

The appeal was allowed and the matter goes back to a differently constituted tribunal to redetermine the doors, the boiler, the decking, the monitors and the inconvenience award. Findings not challenged stand and will not be reargued. The decision also flags, without deciding, whether the statutory repairing standard can found a damages claim at all or whether its enforcement route is the only one available. That question waits for another day, and it is a larger one than the sums in this case.