Read v Notting Hill Housing Trust (2013)

Bow County Court

The tenant had an assured shorthold tenancy of a two bedroom ground floor flat and paid £289 per week in rent.  A few months after moving into the property the tenant informed the landlord that rats were getting into the property and also reported the matter to the Council Environmental Health Officer.  The entrance was through holes in the floorboards. There was also rising damp at the property and a boiler which only produced hot water intermittently.  The tenant was offered alternative accommodation about a year after reporting the rat problem.  One of the tenant's children had gone to stay with the grandmother because of the rat problem.  

London Quadrant Housing Trust v Riemy [2008], Mayors City County Court

A large number of mice entered the property through holes in the floor which had arisen due to disrepair. The tenant reported this in 1991, but the landlord refused to take any action and told him that the problem was his own responsibility.

In 2005, the tenant fitted a new carpet to cover up the holes. This did not resolve the problem, so the following month the tenant fitted new laminate flooring. The tenant later fell into rent arrears, and when the landlord commenced possession proceedings the tenant counterclaimed for damages for the mouse infestation.

McGuigan v Southwark LBC [1996] CLY 3721

A block of flats was suffering from an infestation of cockroaches, and these soon began to infiltrate the complainant tenant’s flat. The landlord took no action to remedy this, and by 1990 an extremely severe problem developed; cockroaches lived in the oven, fridge, freezer, television and telephone, and crawled all over the floors and furniture. To try to discourage them, the tenant did not use any heating for a while. She could not keep any food in the property, so always ate out. Bedding had to be checked everyday, and in 1991 the tenant stopped sleeping in the property. The tenant became extremely depressed and then suicidal, and she was referred for psychiatric assistance. In December 1991 the tenant was offered alternative accommodation, but her new landlord and her environmental health officer advised her not to take her possessions with her for risk of infecting her new flat. The new landlord informed her that she would be liable for any such infestation, so she discarded all of her possessions and could not afford to furnish her new flat properly. The tenant also had a separate complaint that the council had failed to maintain the common parts of the block of flats, as drug needles had not been removed.

The court held

In this case the courts recognised an exception to the caveat emptor rule, which is a common law rule meaning ‘let the buyer beware’. In the absence of any express agreement betweent the parties, neither party is responsible for the condition of the property, or repairs. Under this principle, the onus is on the person entering into a tenancy to satisfy himself of the condition of the property to which the tenancy relates.
A landlord  rented out furnished premises to Sir Thomas Marrable. Lady Marrable subsequently found the premises to be infested with bugs and Sir Thomas gave notice to the landlord that he was giving up the tenancy.  The landlord argued that Sir Thomas had no right to give up this tenancy because it had been agreed for a minimum term of 5 weeks and only five days had elapsed.

HELD: