Bristol room dispute settles with 31 March departure and conditional £100 rent adjustment

Gareth Pritchard and Leanne Brooks have settled their dispute over a room in his Bristol home, agreeing that Brooks will leave on 31 March. Pritchard sought possession at the earliest justified date without paying compensation; the agreement instead allows a conditional rent adjustment capped at £100.

The dispute, brought before the County Court serving Bristol, concerned both the timing of departure and damp beside Brooks’s bed. Brooks maintained that the agreed notice period had not expired and that the damp reduced the room’s usability. The settlement fixes a departure date while making any payment depend on what an inspection documents.

The parties agreed to an inspection at a mutually arranged time, giving Brooks a reasonable opportunity to arrange access. It must be completed by 27 March and document any reduced usability.

A rent adjustment is payable only if reduced usability is documented, and cannot exceed £100. The terms do not promise a payment simply because damp was reported, nor do they specify that the maximum sum will be paid.

There is no admission of liability. Any adjustment will constitute full and final resolution of all damp-related claims. These are agreed settlement terms, not judicial findings about the condition of the room or responsibility for it.

Pritchard’s position was that their agreement allowed either party to end the arrangement on 28 days’ written notice. He sent notice on 3 March asking Brooks to leave on 31 March, and sought departure after the notice period properly expired.

He disputed serious disrepair, describing the damp as condensation. He also disputed refusing an inspection, pointing to his offer to attend. Brooks acknowledged sometimes drying laundry in the room, but the record does not establish what caused the damp.

Brooks challenged the notice timing and said the room’s usability had been reduced. No witness evidence about the damp or its cause is supplied. The settlement leaves those competing accounts unresolved rather than endorsing either one.

Brooks rented a room in Pritchard’s home and shared the kitchen and bathroom. She reported damp beside her bed on 12 February.

On 21 February, Pritchard offered an inspection the next morning. Brooks was unavailable and proposed the following evening. Pritchard later said he would arrange another time, but no later appointment was recorded.

The agreement supplies a deadline and an access arrangement where the earlier exchanges had not produced a recorded inspection. It resolves when Brooks will leave and provides a limited route to a rent adjustment, without deciding whether the original notice was legally sufficient or whether the damp amounted to serious disrepair.