Lee v Leeds CC; Ratcliffe and Others v Sandwell MBC [2002] EWCA Civ 6
Landlord’s obligations with regards to ensuring that a property is fit for human habitation
Facts
Both claimants were tenants of local authorities under secure tenancies. In both circumstances, the claimant’s properties suffered from condensation, damp and mould growth causing the properties to be prejudicial to the health of the occupants. It was considered that the cause of this problem was in the construction and design of the properties, there being a lack of adequate heating, ventilation or insulation. Both tenancy agreements contained an express clause requiring the council landlord to keep in good repair the structure of the building. It was acknowledged that this express clause reflected the clause implied by section 11(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The claimants sought an order requiring the defendants to make repairs to the properties rectifying the defects which caused the damp problems. In addition to the 1995 Act, the claimants relied on section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. The claims were dismissed on the basis that the landlord’s obligations lay in rectifying matters of disrepair only, this term did not extend to remedying design defects. The claimants appealed on this point and on the basis that section 11 of the 1985 Act should be read in conjunction with Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950).
Issue
The issues in this context related to whether a landlord was obliged to make good faults in a building that related to the design of the building on the basis that these fell within the definition of disrepair and/or whether this obligation implied a term into the lease agreement that rented properties should be fit for human habitation.
Held
The appeal was denied. (1) The obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights were not absolute and required a balance to be struck between the needs of the individual and the council’s resources. (2) The requirements of section 11 of the 1985 Act did not extend to rectifying design defects. (3) Design faults were not relevant defects for the purposes of section 4 of the 1972 Act and therefore, this section did not give rise to a duty on the part of the council.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Lee v Leeds CC; Ratcliffe and Others v Sandwell MBC [2002] EWCA Civ 6. The core legal principles described — that the repairing obligation under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 does not extend to remedying design defects, and that section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 similarly does not impose a duty in respect of design faults — remain good law.
However, readers should be aware of a significant legislative development. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, which amended the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 by inserting section 9A, introduced an implied covenant in residential tenancy agreements that the dwelling must be fit for human habitation at the time of letting and throughout the tenancy. This applies to most residential tenancies in England granted on or after 20 March 2019, with phased extension to periodic tenancies from 20 March 2020. The 2018 Act draws on the fitness criteria in section 10 of the 1985 Act, which include matters such as damp and ventilation. This development goes some way beyond the position as it stood at the time of the Lee litigation and may affect how similar facts would be approached today. The article does not address this statutory development, which students should consider alongside the case. The position described in the article remains historically accurate but is now only part of the picture for residential tenants in England.
