Homeowner ordered to repay £225,000 Thames Water settlement after undisclosed £780,000 sale

Mixed · 2The High Court has ordered Karen Imber, of Woodford Green, to repay the £225,000 she received from Thames Water in a 2023 flood-damage settlement, after finding she had not told the company her home had already been sold. 1 2 Mixed · 2Her home had been flooded with sewage in 2006, 2007 and 2014. The first claim, over the 2006 and 2007 floods, ended in a £500,000 settlement in 2013, and the 2014 flood led to a second claim for uninsured losses. 1 2 Mixed · 2In the second claim, Imber's expert valued the house at £817,000 on the hypothetical basis that it had never flooded, and said there would be 'no willing buyer' given its history. She claimed the full value of the house, plus other sums totalling £144,000 for increased insurance premiums, distress and inconvenience and other losses. Thames Water denied liability and disputed that flooding had reduced the market value. 2 1

Mixed · 2At mediation in 2023 Imber stated she was 'trapped' in the property because she could not sell it. Thames Water agreed a £225,000 settlement on 6 September 2023, and the Daily Mail reports it was paid a week later. 2 1 Mixed · 2Thames Water did not know that Imber had accepted an offer of £780,000 for the house before the mediation. The judge said contracts were exchanged on 2 August 2023 and the sale completed on 3 August 2023, about £37,000 below the figure her expert gave for the house on the no-flooding basis. 2 1 Right · 1Thames Water sued for fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking rescission of the settlement, repayment and/or damages. Its barrister, James Davies, argued that calling the property unsaleable was an opinion but implied it had not been sold and had no prospect of sale, and that it was a 'continuing representation' Imber had a duty to correct once it became untrue. 2

Mixed · 2Imber denied acting dishonestly. According to the Daily Mail, she said she had told the mediator of the offer, believed it had been passed to Thames Water, and thought she had no further duty to say anything. 2 1 Mixed · 2Deputy Master Alexandra Marzec granted summary judgment to Thames Water, finding no real prospect of Imber defending the claim. The judge held that the completed sale changed the factual basis of the claim, that Thames Water relied on the false representation, and that 'ordinary decent people would plainly regard it as dishonest' to pursue and settle a claim on an unsaleable-property basis without telling the other side the property had been sold. The judge applied the honesty test from Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017), and said this would hold even if Imber had earlier disclosed an accepted offer or did not appreciate that lawyers would see her mediation statement as a continuing representation. 2 1 Mixed · 2The settlement was rescinded and repayment of the full sum ordered. The Times of India dates the ruling to 23 October 2026. Thames Water may pursue further damages for the misrepresentation, which would be assessed at a later hearing. 1 2