WHEN an opera singer found the Edinburgh flat he had rented was covered in dog hairs, he claimed it could have affected his voice and made it impossible to perform.
Francesc Garrigosa, who was in Edinburgh to perform at the International Festival, and his two daughters were moved to another flat, but the incident led to a legal battle between the flat's owner and the letting company in the city's Sheriff Court.
The flat's owner, Joanne Soroka, an artist and lecturer at Edinburgh College of Art, decided to let her flat in Clarence Street during the 2007 Festival and appointed Dickins Festival & Short Lets as agents.
The company's owner, Louise Dickins, obtained two bookings for the flat, one for two weeks for Mr Garrigosa and for the final week of the Festival for Big Talk Productions.
The first booking was due to start at 4pm on 3 August, but Mr Garrigosa arrived at 1pm. Ms Soroka was still in the flat packing for her departure to Canada. Her Golden Retriever was also there.
Mr Garrigosa complained that the flat was not clean and contacted the letting agents. Ms Dickins attended the flat and agreed the singer and his family could not stay there. She managed to obtain another let for them and sent a firm of cleaners to Clarence Street. They charged the agents £65.80. The let of the flat in the final week went ahead and Ms Soroka was paid £621.40 for that.
However, she only received £65.55 for the failed let to the singer. The original amount of £1714, less the agents' commission and VAT; the £1200 for the hire of the second property; and the £65.80 cleaning bill.
In the civil action, Ms Soroka sued the letting company for £1265.67.
The major amount for the money she would have received if the let to Mr Garrigosa had gone ahead and to recover the cleaning bill deduction. Ms Dickins had a counter claim for £869.50 – comprising £822.50 for the seven hours she claimed to have spent finding the other flat and £47 administrative charge for organising the cleaning of the flat.
A letter from Mr Garrigosa about the flat stated: "We began to notice there were dog hairs all over the sofa and other chairs in the sitting room and in the kitchen, so we went to check the beds. There were dog hairs on the beds and in the double bed even inside the sheets, basically there were dog hairs all over the apartment. I complained to the owner, but her answer was that she had cleaned everything and the sheets were clean".
He added: "I was very upset the flat was so dirty and badly prepared, since apart from the amount of money I was paying to stay there, I am allergic to the hairs of some animals like cats and dogs and my two daughters have asthmatic bronchitis, so the problem could have become a health problem and for me, staying at the flat with that much dog hairs could have meant that I was unable to perform as it would have affected my voice".
In a written judgment, Sheriff Alistair Noble found that Ms Soroka had been unsuccessful in her action and Ms Dickins unsuccessful in her counterclaim.
He said: "I appears to me, that the fair result is that there should be no expenses due to or by either party. In other words, each party will bear her own costs".
