[...]

[...]

[...]

Rogerson v Bolsover District Council [2019] EWCA Civ 226, 26 February 2019

Mrs Rogerson, a council tenant, had a tenancy which started on 7th September 2014.  Mrs Rogerson was mowing the front garden when she stepped backwards onto an inspection cover which gave way.  She fell through the cover into the sewerage void beneath.  The cover and support were owned by Severn Trent Water.  Mrs Rogerson suffered injuries, loss and damage as a result of the incident and made a claim against the landlord (Bolsover District Council). The question here is when is the landlord's duty under section 4 Defective Premises Act 1972 engaged and is there any duty to inspect.  The landlord had conducted an inspection of the property in May 2013 and a survey in January 2014.  Expert evidence showed that the manhole, the void and the cover would be about 40 to 60 years old and it was clear that it was beginning to corrode away causing the support provided by the framework to deteriorate over a period of time.  This meant that the inspection cover was not able to take the tenant's weight and it is likely that the corrosion with the rain water has affected the mortor and, therefore caused the stability of the inspection cover to fail.  The District Judge found that

New Crane Wharf Freehold Ltd v Dovener [2019] UKUT 98 (LC)

In this case the lease contained a clause (Clause 3.08) which stated 'to permit the lessor and its agents and workmen at all reasonable times on giving not less than forty eight hours notice (except in case of emergency) to enter the Demised Premises for .........'  The landlord wrote to the tenant on two occasions requiring access to inspect the property and both letters proposed dates and times for access to the property.  The tenant did not respond to the first letter but in a later email demanded to know why the landlord required access as it was an invasion of privacy and breach of the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the property.  The tenant gave no response to the second letter.  The landlord stated that they had a right to inspect the property under Clause 3.08 but did not give the exact reason as to why they wanted to inspect the property.  There was no evidence that the landlord or contractors had attended the property and attempted to obtain access.  The landlord made an application to the First-Tier Tribunal

[...]

Edwards v Kumarasamy [2015] EWCA Civ 20

Mr Edwards rented a second floor flat from Mr Kumarasamy who was the leaseholder of the flat. Mr Kumarasamy did not own any other part of the property but his lease granted him the right "to use on foot the entrance hall, lift and staircases giving access to the flat; the right to use an access road and parking space and the right to use the Bin Store (which is part of the communal areas as defined) and other facilities provided by the landlord.  Regulations forming part of the lease in fact require all domestic rubbish to be placed in the Bin Store."

The freeholders covenanted under the lease to keep the communal areas in good and substantial repair and to keep the passageways and footpaths forming part of the building in good order and condition.  The lease also included a clause which limited the freeholder's liability for any defect unless Mr Kumarasamy had given notice of the defect and the freeholder had been given reasonable time to carry out the repairs.

Whilst Mr Edwards was taking the rubbish out to the Bin Store he tripped over an uneven paving stone on the pathway between the front door of the block of flats and the communal bins in the car park.  Mr Edwards injured his knee.  Mr Edwards had not given prior notice to Mr Kumarasamy of the uneven paving stone and Mr Kumarasamy has not given prior notice to the freeholder either.  The pathway was the main access to the block of flats.  Mr Edwards claimed that Mr Kumarasamy was responsible for the defect under Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

The District Judge found that the path was part of the exterior and structure of the flat and did therefore come under Section 11 and damages were awarded to Mr Edwards, however on appeal the Circuit Judge found it was not part of the structure and exterior.  Mr Edwards had put forward a new argument that Mr Kumarasamy was liable for the path under section 11 (1A) but the Circuit Judge decided that there had not been any notice of the defect so there could be not liability.

The case was referred to the Court of Appeal:

DR v Southwark LBC, Lambeth County Court 2014

DR lived in a two bedroom flat with her three children which had suffered from damp and condensation as a result of various factors:

• historic penetrating damp from the external wall into the bathroom causing damp plaster;
• hydroscopic dampness to the bathroom walls which were exacerbated by general use of the bathroom;
• condensation; and
• construction methods.

As the property was in a serious state of disrepair it was difficult to establish the damp from the condensation.  The council made various attempts to remedy the mould growth but the mould growth always returned.

DR claimed that the majority of the damp was caused by condensation but that the council were responsibile for the damp plaster in the bathroom and to the external wall relying on Grand v Gill.  DR argued that the council was responsible for the plaster defects because the plaster was in disrepair and formed part of the structure of the property which the landlord was responsible for.  The council maintained that they were not responsible for any of the damp at the property as it was caused by condensation.  

Prior to trial an expert inspection was carried out which included carbide testing to the core wall. The report concluded that the

Voysey v Ellas (2013) 

Croydon County Court

The tenant had an assured shorthold tenancy for which they paid rent of £1,050 per month.  The tenant lived at the property with their adult daughter and son, the son is registered as blind.  The boiler at the property was defective for a period of three and a half months during which time there was no heating or hot water.  The tenant had to fill the bath with saucepans of boiling water.

There was also a minor persistent leak in the conservatory for twenty nine months and defective drainage in the bathroom for two years.  

Vaughan v MLS Properties Ltd (2013)

Edmonton County Court

The tenant rented a two bedroom first floor flat in a block in June 2009 for £975 per month.  From November 2009 there were various defects at the property including; uneven floorboards with exposed nails and an unsafe fire escape from the start of the tenancy, defective gas central heating, dampness and water penetration in most rooms, exacerbating condensation and mould, defective plaster and problems with the electric installation.

Following works carried out by the landlord's contractors the property had defective double glazed windows in one bedroom and the living room, and defective tiling in the bathroom and WC.

From September 2012, building works and scaffolding for the erection of a new storey immediately above the property resulted in

Grand v Gill [2011] EWCA Civ 554

Ms Grand ocupied the property on a periodic AST with her daughter and made a claim against the landlord for harassment, personal injury, breach of quiet enjoyment covenant and disrepair.  The main concern was the disrepair to the property.  Grand's daughter began sleeping in the lounge due to damp and mould in her room.  There was a problem with water due to a damaged roof and poor guttering.  However, these issues did not form part of the landlord's property.  Finally, the gas-fired boiler broke down frequently and worked inefficiently.