Landlords, property defects and personal injury

Houses iStock 000007619264XSmall 146x219Landlords should welcome two recent County Court rulings on property defects, writes Peter Wake.

The county court cases of Clelland v Hunt (Leeds County Court, HHJ Grenfell – 30 October 2013) and Pritchard v Caerphilly CBC (Cardiff County Court, HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC – 26 November 2013) are two helpful decisions for landlords.

The Clelland judgment confirms again that ‘good repair’ does not mean ‘safe condition’. In Pritchard the judge rejected an argument that liability under s.4 the Defective Premises Act 1972 (the Act) could arise irrespective of a landlord’s knowledge of a defect (actual or constructive).

Facts

Ms Clelland fell on the steps leading from her patio doors to her garden. The bottom step was narrower than the higher steps and her foot went over the edge of it. She claimed damages against her landlord (Ms. Hunt) for a breach of the lease which provided for the steps to be kept in “good repair”.

Miss Pritchard, a local authority tenant, fell down the stairs in her home when she leant on the handrail and it gave way. It was accepted the handrail was part of the structure of the premises. The defect in the handrail was not visible. The District Judge who dismissed the claim held it was “a latent defect that was not ascertainable”. The claimant appealed, arguing that pursuant to s.4(4) of the Act, the council’s retained right of entry under the tenancy agreement meant that actual or constructive knowledge of the defect was irrelevant to liability.

Judgments

Clelland – a duty to keep in good repair (or good condition) cannot include a duty to put into a safe condition (Alker v Collingwood Housing [2007]). The bottom step was not out of repair. It was arguably of poor design but that does not amount to a defect.

Pritchard – the duty under the Act was not a strict duty that arose irrespective of knowledge and questions of knowledge were not excluded by s.4(4). This was clear from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Sykes v Harry [2001]. The judge distinguished the High Court decision of Hannon v Hillingdon [2012], in which the landlord was liable for a missing banister of which it had no actual notice; Hannon involved an obvious (patent) defect of which the landlord had been fixed with constructive knowledge by the visits of its operatives/agents.

Comment

The judgment in Clelland was arguably inevitable. With Pritchard, it is pleasing to see the court maintain a realistic approach to a landlord’s ‘repair’ liability; the claimant’s argument in that case was effectively that a right of entry equated to statutory constructive notice of a relevant defect under the Act – this argument was rejected.

Peter Wake is a Partner in the Local Government Team of Weightmans LLP. He can be contacted on 0151 242 6866 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..