Southwark LBC v McIntosh [2001]

The tenant of a property became aware of a pervading atmosphere of damp, which became progressively worse. Mould appeared in various places and the bedroom ceased to be useable as such. In 1994 the tenant reported the matter to the landlord, the Borough Council, after water began to leak through the kitchen ceiling. Despite repeated complaints by the tenant, no remedial steps were taken before 1999.

The tenant alleged that during these five years the landlords had been in breach of the implied covenant in the tenancy that the landlords would keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installations for sanitation and for the supply of water. The claim specified particular items of damage that were alleged to have been caused by damp. It was established at the trial that a significant cause of the damp was the tenant’s practice of using a cupboard designed for storing dry goods for the purpose of drying recently washed clothes.
The tenant was awarded damages of £7, 500 in respect of discomfort, as the judge held that the landlords were responsible for the misuse of the cupboard as they had failed to advise the tenant against such use.
The judge also rejected the landlords’ contention that the tenant had failed to establish that the damage was attributable to physical damage to the structure or exterior of the property, because the landlords had not done anything over a period of five years in response to the tenant’s complaints.
The landlords appealed to the High Court.

On appeal:
HELD: The appeal was allowed as no duty requiring the landlords to advise on the proper use of the cupboard could arise under their implied covenant to repair.
The landlords also did not have a duty to investigate the complaints, unless the damp had been caused by relevant physical damage.