A pensioner who claimed her home was unsellable due to repeated sewage floods has been ordered to repay £225,000 in compensation after it emerged she had already sold the property for £780,000.
Karen Imber, 68, sued Thames Water after her home in Woodford Green, Essex, was flooded three times between 2006 and 2014. She initially received £500,000 in compensation after the first two incidents. Following a third flood in 2014, she launched a second claim, asserting that her home's value had been reduced to nothing and that it was unsellable due to its history of flooding.
Experts for Mrs. Imber stated that while the property might have been worth £817,000 without the floods, there would be "no willing buyer" given its condition. During mediation in 2023, she claimed she was "trapped" in the property because it was unsaleable and sought damages for the total value of the house, plus additional sums for increased insurance premiums and distress.
She reached a settlement with Thames Water for £225,000 in September 2023. However, Thames Water later discovered that Mrs. Imber had accepted an offer of £780,000 for the house a month before the settlement was agreed. Contracts were exchanged on August 2, 2023, and the sale was completed on August 3, 2023.
In light of this discovery, Thames Water filed a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking the repayment of the settlement sum. Lawyers for the company argued that Mrs. Imber's statement that the property was "unsaleable" implied it had not been sold and that there was no prospect of a sale. They contended that this statement was a continuing representation and that she had a duty to inform Thames Water when the situation changed.
Deputy Master Alexandra Marzec ruled that Mrs. Imber had no prospect of defending the fraud claim. The judge stated that "ordinary decent people would plainly regard it as dishonest" to pursue a claim based on a property being unsaleable after it had been sold, without informing the opposing party. The judge rescinded the settlement agreement and ordered Mrs. Imber to repay the £225,000. Thames Water may also pursue her for further damages at a subsequent hearing.