A tenant with a secure tenancy of a  flat owned by the local authority brought a claim that the electrical supply arrangements were unsafe and that, accordingly, the flat was unfit for human habitation.  Because there was only one spare 13 amp socket point in the kitchen, the tenant had purchased a gang socket hanging free from the single socket to run a kettle, toaster, television and washing machine. The tenant's solicitors had sought an expert opinion which stated that the hanging socket arrangement was unsafe and that the facilities for cooking of food were not satisfactory as a result.

HELD:

A tenant brought an action against her landlord to recover compensation arising from the loss of her uninsured possessions in a fire at the property. At trial an expert witness gave evidence on her behalf that it was most likely that the fire had started near electrical equipment, although it had been impossible to locate the exact source of the fire.

An expert witness for the landlord suggested that it was very likely that the fire had broken out close to the bed of the tenant’s son, and contended that it could have been caused by a naked flame. The tenant’s son denied that at the material time he had been a smoker. This was

A landlord, Mr Shafti, employed Lyttons to manage the property for him. The agents did not make safety checks on furniture in the house before tenants moved in. Four students in the property then complained to Oxfordshire's Trading Standards Service, and a number of items (including mattresses and a refrigerator) were seized for testing. The furniture did not display the appropriate permanent labels as required under the Furniture & Furnishings (Fire)(Safety) Regulations 1989 and failed subsequent fire safety tests.  The refrigerator was also non-compliant - it was

A landlord arranged a holiday let to the tenant, but the tenant declined to take up occupancy as he was not happy with the condition of certain items that were supplied with the property. Trading standards officers found that the electrical equipment did not comply with the Low Voltage Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1989. 

The judge held that [...]