Notes from hearing: small claims post-tenancy charges dispute/ 21.01.26 DJ Cleeves

2pm court hearing at MCJC:

A small‑claims trial provided a clear look at how courts approach disputes arising from informal living arrangements, especially when no written tenancy agreement exists. The hearing lasted under an hour, despite being listed for two, after the judge narrowed the issues to those the court was legally able to consider.

Background to the Dispute

The parties had lived together in a rented property. When one of them moved in, they effectively took over the previous tenant’s arrangement but without a written tenancy agreement. The court accepted that an implied tenancy arose because the defendant lived in the property and contributed to payments during the period of occupation.

After the relationship ended and the defendant moved out, the claimant sought payment of various post‑tenancy charges, arguing there had been a shortfall in contributions towards bills.

The defendant disputed liability, saying they had never seen the bills, had not agreed to pay certain amounts, and believed they had left the property earlier than the claimant alleged.

Issues the Court Could Consider

The judge made it clear that only the issues properly pleaded could be decided.
This meant:

• The court could consider whether the defendant owed any of the unpaid charges the claimant claimed.

• It could not consider new issues raised informally or matters that ought to have been the subject of a counterclaim.

Both parties were reminded that disagreements over the entire financial arrangement should have been formally raised in the pleadings.

Evidence and Submissions

The claimant argued that some bills remained unpaid after the defendant left and that the charges sought were made in good faith, not inflated or unreasonable.

The defendant maintained they owed nothing further, disputed parts of the billing, and believed they departed earlier than claimed. They also raised the point that they had no legal responsibility for bills tied to a tenancy agreement they had never seen or signed.

The judge noted:

• Both parties appeared truthful and honest,

• But communication between them had been poor,

• And there was no written agreement setting out their obligations.

Judge’s Findings

The court had to determine whether a contract existed between the two parties, and if so, what the defendant actually agreed to pay.

The judge concluded:

• A contract by conduct existed because payments had been made during the period of occupation.

• However, there was insufficient evidence that the defendant owed the larger disputed amounts claimed.

• The bills in question appeared to have increased rather than reduced, and the evidence did not support the full claim.

Only one limited part of the claim—linked to specific unpaid charges—was upheld.

The judge emphasised that contract terms cannot be varied without agreement from both sides and acknowledged the defendant’s disappointment with the outcome.

Procedural concerns were also raised: the defendant objected to late filings, while the claimant argued they had attempted mediation. The judge accepted that the delays had not caused real prejudice.

Outcome

A modest sum was ultimately awarded against the defendant, reflecting only the portion the court was satisfied had been proved on the balance of probabilities. Payment was ordered within the standard timeframe.

The judge also reiterated that any appeal must be based on legal or procedural error, not dissatisfaction with the decision itself.

Point to note: both parties were well prepared, self represented and bundles were prepared by the court.