A landlord was liable for the injury suffered by a person visiting the tenant of the property.

The claimant visited friends who rented a property from the defendant. There were several steps from the pavement up to the front door, as the property was higher than the pavement. There was a handrail on the left hand side of the steps but not on the right, and on the right side of the steps were more steps leading down to a basement flat. On each side of the front steps was a very low stone pediment. The claimant fell over the edge of the steps, down at least eight feet onto the hard surface (or the stone steps) below, and was rendered paraplegic.

After an initial exchange of correspondence, the defendant landlord had admitted liability in a letter, but then later withdrew the admission when legal

The landlords, a local authority, were found to be in breach of their tenancy agreement with the tenant, in breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and guilty of nuisance. They had over a period of many years failed to properly operate a refuse chute within a block of flats. Refuse frequently piled up outside the tenant's flat and there were complaints of considerable noise as well as smells and maggot infestations in and around the bin areas. 

HELD: The Court of Appeal held that

The tenant was a secure social housing tenant whose tenancy agreement stated that the landlord was to "maintain the dwelling in good condition and repair, except for such items which are the responsibility of the tenant."  The tenant complained of mould at the base of the windows, external walls and under the carpets and soft furnishings which had been caused by condensation and damp due to lack of thermal insulation in the external walls.

It was held:

The tenant of a property became aware of a pervading atmosphere of damp, which became progressively worse. Mould appeared in various places and the bedroom ceased to be useable as such. In 1994 the tenant reported the matter to the landlord, the Borough Council, after water began to leak through the kitchen ceiling. Despite repeated complaints by the tenant, no remedial steps were taken before 1999.

The tenant alleged that during these five years the landlords had been in breach of the implied covenant in the tenancy that the landlords would keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installations for sanitation and for the supply of water. The claim specified particular items of damage that were alleged to have been caused by damp. It was established at the trial that

The claimant tenant and his wife held a shorthold tenancy of premises owned by the landlord. Shortly before granting the tenancy the landlord had installed a gas fire to replace a defective one, but had not entered into any service agreement relating to the fire. In February 1994 the claimant was taken to hospital and discovered to be suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning. The claimant alleged that the landlord was in breach of his implied obligations under s. 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the fire in repair, and for breach of the duty of care owed by the landlord under s. 4 Defective Premises Act 1972.

The council landlord granted the tenant a secure tenancy in February 1992, and in October 1992 it obtained a possession order for arrears of £871. The order was suspended on terms that the defendant pay current rent and £5 per week towards the arrears, but by December 1992 the tenant had breached the terms. In May 1994 the council and tenant again made an agreement for further repayment which the tenant then breached. In September 1996 the tenant brought an action for damages against the council, claiming that they had breached their repairing obligations. In its [...]

About a month after moving into her new council property, the tenant fell down the stairs because a piece of wood broke off the leading edge of one of the steps.

Her action for personal injury was successful.  The tenant was awarded damages of £2,500 under Defective Premises Act 1974 s4.

Passley v Wandsworth Borough Council [1998] 

30 HLR 165 Court of Appeal 

Water pipes in the roof over a block of flats burst during freezing weather which flooded the tenant's flat.  The council attended to the burst pipe and carried out the repairs promptly.  The tenant claimed compensation for the damage caused by the flooding stating that the repair arose in a common part retained in the ownership and management of the landlord and that the statutory implied covenant to keep in repair under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 imposed an obligation on the landlord to keep the pipes in good order at all times.  

The Court of Appeal held

The landlord let a flat for £200 a month in January 1993. The rent was paid for the most part by the local authority.  The two bedroomed property suffered from severe damp penetration and suffered from condensation problems. In March 1993 the tenant's solicitor sent the landlord a letter complaining about the damp. On July 16th 1993 a surveyors report was served on the landlord detailing the defects. On July 26 1993 the local council served a notice on the landlord  requiring her to carry out specific works to remedy the defect.  The landlord carried out alternative work in September 1993 (instead of renewing the plaster she opted to use anti fungal paint). This cured the damp in the living room but [...]

Quick v Taff-Ely BC [1986] QB 809

Mr Quick rented a property with his wife and four daughters from the council.  The property suffered from severe condensation and the living conditions of Mr Quick and his family were rendered appalling.  There was uncontradicted evidence that Mr Quick had made numerous complaints to the council regarding the condition of the property but his complaints were ignored so he started court action.

Expert evidence concluded that the property was subject to severe condensation on the walls, windows and metal surfaces in all rooms of the house.  Water had to be frequently wiped off the walls and paper had peeled off the walls and ceilings.  The woodwork was rotten, there was mould growth in places and in two back bedrooms there was a persistent and offensive smell of damp.  The condensation was caused by warm air of the environment in the rooms reading the cold surfaces of the building and the moisture of the condensation was then absorbed by the atmosphere and transferred to the bedding, clothes and other fabrics which became mildewed and rotten. The expert stated that