S. 4 Defective Premises Act 1972 requires landlords to keep property in good condition, but does guarantee the safety of the property by requiring landlords to put the property in good condition before the tenancy commences.

A tenant of a Housing Association property put her left hand to the glass panel of the front door and pushed it open, but the glass broke and her arm went through the pane. She was very badly cut. The door was not fitted with safety glass, but its fittings complied with the building regulations which were applicable when the property was built.

The tenant brought an action against the landlord Housing Association, but as there was no disrepair there  was not a viable claim for breach of the implied repairing obligation arising under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The tenant instead relied on a claim for damages for breach of the statutory duty arising under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. The tenancy agreement contained a clause that the Housing Association would keep the property in "good condition". Both parties accepted that this obligation was more than mere repair, but the tenant argued that it imposed on the landlord an obligation to make the door safe.

The County Court judge

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: [...]

An environmental health officer was found negligence in giving bad advice, and his employers were liable in damages.

An environmental health officer inspected a guest house, and informed the owners that 13 substantial building and refurbishment works were required in order to comply with the law. They were told that if they did not do the required works he would have to shut them down. They therefore complied with his demands, which incurred them heavy costs. After the work had been completed, the proprietors found that it had not in fact been at all necessary.

The County Court judge held

A tenant fell from stone steps leading up to the rented property, and was injured. There were two flights of steps over sloping land. They had been constructed by the council with no handrail and no lighting. At first instance, the judge found that the construction had been inherently dangerous.

On appeal: [...]

The council had a duty under s. 4 Defective Premises Act 1972 to repair a broken step in a tenanted property, and their failure to do so constituted a breach of this duty.

A tenant of a council house slipped when a step she was standing on in her garden rocked under her weight.

The tenant argued that the landlord council had a duty of care to maintain the steps, either due to a clause in the tenancy agreement obliging the council to maintain the structure and exterior of the property in good repair or at common law. The tenant argued that the council had breached this duty by failing to repair the step after receiving a complaint about it from the tenant’s husband. The council disputed this duty, and also the making of the complaint. The council asked the tenant for the details of any implied term or statutory provision that the tenants were relying on, and the tenant said that the term in the tenancy agreement was an express term, or alternatively it was implied by operation of law.

The council’s legal representatives were aware of the possible relevance of s. 4 Defective Premises Act 1972, so again asked the tenant to state whether she was relying on a term implied by statute and, if so, to identify it. The tenant’s reply again did not mention the 1972 Act, but contended that the council’s repairing obligation was to be implied at common law, or under s. 32 of the Housing Act 1961. (These provisions are now contained in s. 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985).

The case then went to trial, where

Although landlords do not have a general common law duty of care to tenants, landlords who design and build the premises themselves owe a duty of care in their capacity as designer or builder to all persons who might reasonably be expected to be affected by faults in the design or construction of the premises.

The tenant of a council property which had been designed and built by the council complained to the housing department about a thin panel of glass in an internal wall. He said that it posed a potential danger to his young son, but was told that it was a standard installation and could not be changed. Later, the tenant tripped and put his hand through the glass. He claimed damages for negligence.

On appeal:

A landlord was not negligent in not encasing heating pipes which reached very high temperatures.

The tenants of a house rented from the council had a six month old baby who fell onto pipes of 72 degrees and became trapped, and was badly burned. The tenants brought an action for damages against the council, asserting that the council had been negligent in failing to encase the piping, or for failing to warn her parents of the risk.

The local authority counterclaimed, contending that the baby’s mother had been negligent. The court held that