Boateng v Camden LBC [2001]

A landlord did not have duty of care, either at common law or under s. 4 Defective premises Act 1972, to protect hot pipes to prevent accidental injury.

Tenants of a council house had a nine month old baby, and the baby fell from his bed and became trapped against the hot central heating pipes. He suffered disfiguring burns to his face, and they claimed damages for personal injuries which he alleged were sustained due to the landlord’s negligence and/or breach of s. 4 Defective Premises Act 1972. It was claimed that the central heating system was on constantly and was operating at least 10 degrees hotter than the temperature it had been set to, and that the pipes should have been protected so as to prevent accidental contact resulting in injury. At first instance, the claim was dismissed.

On appeal:
HELD: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, as it was decided that it was reasonable for a local authority to assume that the parents of a small baby who was able to crawl would take reasonable care to protect that baby from injury from unprotected pipes. There was no negligence, or a defect under s. 4 of the 1972 Act, in having the heating on 24 hours a day, and it was held that any excess of temperature could not have been prevented and did not cause the accident. The local authority had been reasonable to conclude that the risk of injury was so slight that it need not take the step of protecting the pipe work, and no British Standard Code of Practice required that such pipes should be protected.

Citation: Boateng v Camden LBC [2001] PIQR P143