Holiday cottage - dry rot, not fit for purpose - legal recourse?

durham_girl

lagoslife wrote: »

One solution is the small claims court, but due to the costs involved this path is rarely taken in small disputes.

I can't remember the exact amount, but it costs less than £50 to start court proceedings, which you get back if you win.

jc808

lagoslife wrote: »

However, the owner could argue that you didn't give them chance to rectify the problem.

For curing a major damp problem/ replacing and making good lots of timbers?
During a holiday break?

By the time the workmans specced up the job and had the materials delivered, the holiday would have been over...

unholyangel

durham_girl wrote: »

I can't remember the exact amount, but it costs less than £50 to start court proceedings, which you get back if you win.

For amounts £300 and under, it would typically cost £55 if it went to court (£25 to file and £30 for the actual hearing i believe) if filed online. However if OP is on benefits or a low income, sometimes the can have the fees paid for them.

OP......dry rot itself is not necessarily a health risk but often it is a indicator of other problems like damp. I think your best bet here is to claim that the accommodation is not of satisfactory quality. Basically that you would expect the property to at least be clean and if it was growing 1.5m over the carpet.......well thats not clean imo.

Can you perhaps upload the pictures to give us an idea of how bad it was?

You could also try contacting consumer direct and/or trading standards and see what advice they can offer. Personally I think the above of a letter before action is your best bet. Ensure to title it "Letter Before Action", keep it as simple and straightforward as possible (ie keep emotion out of it).


Did you have any out of pocket expenses due to leaving the property early?

sunflower_2

can we see the pics???

from the image in my mind - i wouldnt have been staying there either

italiastar

I think the OP was overacting = this was a holiday home. not one they had bought. The presence of dry rot should not be particularly dangerous to humans other that possible damage to the structure - the clue is in the name - it's dry rot, not wet rot - ie, damp. I think the owner was quite reasonable offering a refund under the circumstances.