When an unsafe structure does not trigger the landlord’s duty to repair – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The reach of the Defective Premises Act and what ‘defective’ means within the context of the Act, was the subject of detailed consideration in the QBD recently, in Dodd v Raebarn Estates [2016].’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 8th March 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Is an Absent Bannister Disrepair? – The Defective Premises Act Considered – Zenith PI Blog

Posted March 29th, 2016 in appeals, defective premises, housing, landlord & tenant, news, repairs by sally

‘The Court of Appeal have recently considered the issue of whether or not a missing bannister could amount to disrepair pursuant to section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 29th March 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Bannisters that never were – Nearly Legal

‘You wait for 4 years for another case on bannisters and the Defective Premises Act 1972 and then two come along at once…

Sternbaum v Dhesi [2016] EWCA Civ 155

Dodd v Raebarn Estates Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 262 (QB)

Both can be dealt with fairly quickly and together, as the courts follow the same lines. Both cases involved falls on stairs, very sadly in Dodd, a fatal fall. In each case, there was no bannister to the staircase. Both claims were on appeal from being dismissed at first instance.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 20th March 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Of sink holes and strict liability – Nearly Legal

‘Lafferty v Newark & Sherwood District Council [2016] EWHC 320 (QB). Does section 4(4) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 create a strict liability on the landlord for any defect, such that it covers latent or undetectable defects? The short answer is no. This appeal sets out why.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 6th March 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/

Is there a maximum award for general damages arising under contract? – NearlyLegal

Posted January 16th, 2015 in damages, defective premises, news, repairs, representative actions by sally

‘The case of Rendlesham Estates Plc v Barr Ltd [2014] EWHC 3968 (TCC) is a bit off the housing law beaten track and as a result I have only recently got round to reading it properly. It concerned s.1, Defective Premises Act 1974, which is the statutory provision that enables any person with an interest in a dwelling to sue the person responsible for building the dwelling, or carrying out any work in connection with the dwelling, where the dwelling is not fit for human habitation when the work is completed.’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 15th January 2015

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

A guide to the Defective Premises Act 1972 (the DPA) – Zenith PI Blog

Posted October 21st, 2014 in defective premises, landlord & tenant, legislation, news, personal injuries by sally

‘The DPA 1972 is an important, but often misunderstood, piece of legislation within personal injury.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 17th October 2014

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Mind the Step 2 – The bannister that wasn’t – NearlyLegal

“This is the second of two recent cases on Defective Premises Act 1972 and stairs. There is now a third case on Occupiers Liability Act 1957 with our note to come shortly.”

Full story

NearlyLegal, 16th August 2012

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Jenson and another v Faux – WLR Daily

Posted April 15th, 2011 in building law, defective premises, law reports, statutory duty by sally

Jenson and another v Faux [2011] EWCA Civ 423;  [2011] WLR (D)  133

“A contractor who carried out works to a dwelling owed a duty under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to see that the work was done in a workmanlike or professional manner. That duty was owed to the person for whom the works were carried out and the purchaser to whom that property was subsequently sold where the dwelling was new, or if refurbished or extended, it was wholly different from the old dwelling. The Act did not apply to improvements which did not sufficiently change the character of the property so as to amount to a new dwelling.”

WLR Daily, 13th April 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bole and another v Huntsbuild Ltd and another – WLR Daily

Posted March 19th, 2009 in defective premises, law reports by sally

Bole and another v Huntsbuild Ltd and another [2009] EWHC 483 (TCC); [2009] WLR (D) 98

“A finding that the premises were in imminent danger of collapse was not a necessary precursor to making a finding under the Defective Premises Act 1972 that a dwelling house was unfit for human habitation; and unfitness for habitation was to be construed as extending to defects of quality rendering the dwelling unsuitable for its purpose as well as to dangerous defects, regardless of whether such a defect was confined to one part of the dwelling or whether the effects of the defect were evident at the time when the dwelling was completed; and where there were a number of defects, it was necessary to consider the effect of the defects as a whole.”

WLR Daily, 17th March 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.