While many landlords are aware of their responsibilities under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, they should not forget about their responsibilities under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1985 (the Act).
In the case of Mann v Martin (2024) EW Misc 23 (CC), the Claimant, was injured on 19 May 2013 when part of the boundary wall collapsed on her leg, resulting in her requiring plastic surgery. The Claimant contended that the wall was in disrepair and the landlord knew or ought to have known this at the relevant time. The Claimant's mother was the tenant of the property.
Section 4 of the Act states that a "landlord owes to all persons who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects in the state of the premises a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that they are reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property caused by a relevant defect." A landlord must have been made aware of the defect and failed to rectify this defect in order to be liable under the Act.
The legal issues considered by the Judge were:
1. Did the Defendant owe a duty of care to the Claimant under the Act?
2. Was the Defendant aware, or ought she have been aware, of the defect?
While the Judge agreed the Defendant did owe the Claimant a duty of care, he could not be satisfied that the Defendant was, or ought to have been, aware of the defect.
A pre-tenancy inspection was carried out on behalf of the landlord on or around 14 April 2013 and no issues were identified. The Defendant asserted that she was not aware that the wall was in a state of disrepair. She alleged that a fence panel was replaced by an agent instructed by a neighbour after the Claimant moved in. The Claimant alleged that the wall was in a state of disrepair at the time of the inspection and the wall was not properly inspected.
The Judge held that, on the balance of probabilities, it was the neighbour's agent who replaced the fence panel, which resulted in the wall collapsing. The Judge believed that the Defendant had no knowledge of the defect, nor should she have known of it. Pertinently, while the landlord's agent did not refer to the wall in the report, the Judge found that, even if it had been inspected, no defect would have been reasonably discovered. The claim was subsequently dismissed.
This case highlights the importance of the Act in a time where disrepair and the rights of tenants are taking centre stage in the political arena. Landlords should not forget that claims can also be brought under the Act and can best protect themselves with proper and thorough inspections at the outset of tenancies, ensuring proper ongoing routine maintenance inspections and taking prompt action whenever they are notified of potential issues.
While tenants can bring housing conditions claims, it is worth remembering that under the Act, anyone who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects can bring a claim under the Act where they suffer injury as a result.
