A London homeowner has been ordered to repay £225,000 to Thames Water after the High Court found that she pursued a compensation claim describing her flood-hit property as unsaleable even though she had already sold the property.
uncertain
she → order → property
Karen Imber’s home in Woodford Green, Essex, suffered sewage flooding in 2006, 2007 and 2014.
asserted
home → suffer → 2006
According to International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG), she brought a claim against the water company for losses caused by the flooding and agreed to a £225,000 settlement in September 2023.
uncertain
she → accord → September
However, Thames Water later discovered that Imber had accepted an offer of £780,000 for the property before mediation and completed the sale on 3 August 2023.
asserted
Imber → discover → August
On 23 October 2026, the High Court rescinded the settlement after finding that the claim involved fraudulent misrepresentation and dishonesty.
uncertain
claim → rescind → misrepresentation
How did a house sale lead to a £225,000 Thames Water repayment order
Deputy Master Marzec granted summary judgment in favour of Thames Water after finding no real prospect that Thames Water would fail to establish misrepresentation, reliance and dishonesty.
asserted
Water → lead → misrepresentation
Imber had claimed that she was trapped in the property because it was unsaleable.
asserted
it → claim → property
However, she had already accepted an offer to sell the house before the mediation and completed the sale on 3 August 2023.
asserted
she → accept → August
The court found that the completed sale fundamentally changed the factual basis of her claim for a reduction in property value.
uncertain
sale → find → value
Thames Water had agreed to pay £225,000 on 6 September 2023 without being informed that the property had been sold.
asserted
property → agree → September
The judge rescinded the settlement agreement and ordered Imber to repay the full amount.
asserted
judge → rescind → amount
Repeated sewage flooding led to a second Thames Water claim
Imber’s home in Woodford Green, Essex, was flooded by sewage water in 2006 and 2007.
uncertain
home → lead → 2006
She sued Thames Water, and those proceedings concluded in 2013 with a £500,000 settlement agreement.
asserted
proceedings → sue → agreement
The property flooded again in 2014, prompting her to bring another claim against the company for uninsured losses caused by the flooding.
uncertain
property → flood → flooding
Thames Water denied liability but continued to engage in correspondence.
asserted
Water → deny → correspondence
During mediation in 2023, Imber said she was trapped in the property and described it as unsaleable.
asserted
she → say → it
An expert report valued the property at £817,000 on the hypothetical basis that it had never suffered flooding.
asserted
it → value → flooding
Her additional claims covered relocation costs, increased insurance and mortgage premiums, legal costs, distress and inconvenience, totalling £144,000.
uncertain
claims → cover → 144,000
How did a £780,000 house sale lead to a Thames Water fraud claim
Thames Water disputed that the flooding had reduced the property's market value and argued that it could be sold for its full market value.
uncertain
it → lead → value
Nevertheless, the company agreed to the £225,000 settlement on 6 September 2023.
asserted
company → agree → September
It later discovered that Imber had accepted a £780,000 offer before the mediation and completed the sale on 3 August 2023.
asserted
Imber → discover → August
The company then brought a claim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation.
uncertain
company → bring → misrepresentation
Imber denied acting dishonestly or fraudulently by failing to correct her statement during mediation.
asserted
Imber → deny → mediation
Deputy Master Marzec held that describing the property as unsaleable implied that it had not been sold and that there was no prospect of a future sale.
asserted
it → hold → sale
Those implied representations became false when the transaction was completed.
asserted
transaction → imply → ?
High Court orders homeowner to repay £225,000 to Thames Water
Deputy Master Marzec found that Thames Water had relied on the false representation when agreeing to the settlement.
asserted
Water → order → settlement
He said it was impossible to imagine that the company would have reached the same agreement if Imber had corrected the statement.
asserted
Imber → say → statement
The judge applied the honesty test established by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017), considering the defendant’s knowledge and beliefs before assessing her conduct against the standards of ordinary decent people.
asserted
judge → apply → people
He held that continuing to pursue and settle a claim based on a property being unsaleable, without disclosing that it had been sold, would plainly be regarded as dishonest.
uncertain
it → hold → claim
The court found no real prospect that Thames Water would fail to establish misrepresentation, reliance and dishonesty.
asserted
Water → find → misrepresentation
The settlement was rescinded, and Imber was ordered to repay £225,000.
asserted
Imber → rescind → 225,000
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available information.
asserted
article → base → information
The Times of India has not independently verified the court proceedings, settlement details, repayment order, or other circumstances mentioned.
uncertain
Times → verify → proceedings
The information should not be interpreted as an independent legal assessment or as confirmation from the parties involved.
asserted
information → interpret → parties
The Aporia
