Kingston Council has been ordered to pay £745 to a woman who was overcharged for water bills in a decision legal experts believe has “set a precedent” for other cases of its kind.

Nannette Herbert, from Surbiton, took the council to court after being overcharged for water when she became a single occupier following the death of her mother in 2007.

After being moved back and forth between the council and Thames Water, Miss Herbert was finally fitted with a meter running on the correct tariff in December – but a refund was only backdated to September 2012.

On Tuesday at Kingston County Court the case was struck out in her favour after the council failed to produce the written agreement with Thames Water for the property.

District Judge Anne Sturdy said: “The council has got themselves into a mess.

“It has not produced a fundamental document on which it relies. This lady is in a stronger position. She has said ‘I have paid £745 that I have been overcharged and I would like it back please’.

“There would be a lot of cases that would follow suit. I am not concerned about that – we are going to have a lot more cases.”

Last year the Surrey Comet revealed social housing tenants may be owed thousands of pounds in overpaid water bills after the council failed to inform those living alone about the single occupier rate.

Nick Ostrowski, who represented Miss Herbert, said: “It has set a precedent. Not that councils are now liable for water rates but they have to respond to claims made against them for water rates.”

Miss Herbert said: “I thought it was good that the judge said the council was a mess. My barrister said no one has ever won a case against a council before and they are reluctant to rule against councils because it sets a legal precedent.”

The council will now pay Miss Herbert £745.76 and £3 travel costs by May 1, as well as £600 in legal costs.

A council spokeman said: “The Kingston County Court decided for procedural reasons to strike out the council’s defence to Ms Herbert’s claim.

"The judge went on to order the council to pay the sum claimed by Ms Herbert but in doing so she expressly stated that she had not considered the merits of the claim and she was not giving judgement for Ms Herbert.

“The council considers the court’s order unduly harsh,and is considering the merits of an appeal.”