The Court of Appeal dismissed two appeals by council tenants whose homes suffered from condensation and mould. The repairing duties relied on did not require the councils to correct the underlying design defects in the absence of structural disrepair.
Facts
The tenants attributed the damp and mould to inadequate heating, ventilation or insulation. The Lee tenancy contained an express covenant to keep the structure in repair. The Ratcliffe tenancy had no express repairing covenant, so the tenants relied on the duty implied by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Both sets of tenants also relied on section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 and argued that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights required the councils to take action.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Decision
Chadwick LJ, with whom Tuckey LJ and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith agreed, held that a duty to repair can require the landlord to correct a design defect where that is necessary to repair resulting damage to the structure. A design defect alone did not amount to disrepair. The Court declined to imply a separate term requiring the councils to keep the homes in good condition.
The works needed to address the design defects fell outside the maintenance or repair covered by section 4 of the 1972 Act. Even if a landlord had a right to enter to protect the occupants’ health, that right did not make the design defects relevant defects under section 4.
The Court accepted that a council landlord could owe a positive duty under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 8. Whether the condition of a home breached that duty depended on the circumstances and the balance between the tenant’s needs and the wider community interest. Neither appeal established a breach, and the Court found no reason to reinterpret section 11 to impose the obligation the tenants sought.
Reported citation: [2002] 1 WLR 1488.
Source: Lee v Leeds City Council and Ratcliffe v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 6
