Landlords owe a duty of care to their tenants, in particular to protect them from injuries caused by any defects in the rental property.
The Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972) imposes a duty of care on all landlords to ensure premises are safe from defects that could cause injury. The duty applies to those who let premises under a tenancy that includes an obligation or right to repair. The duty is owed to anyone, not only tenants, who might reasonably be expected to be affected by a defect.
“Where premises are let under a tenancy which expressly or impliedly gives the landlord the right to enter the premises to carry out any description of maintenance or repair of the premises, then, as from the time when he first is, or by notice or otherwise can put himself, in a position to exercise the right and so long as he is or can put himself in that position, he shall be treated for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) [of the Act] (but for no other purpose) as if he were under an obligation to the tenant for that description of maintenance or repair of the premises; but the landlord shall not owe the tenant any duty by virtue of this subsection in respect of any defect in the state of the premises arising from, or continuing because of, a failure to carry out an obligation expressly imposed on the tenant by the tenancy.”
In the recent case of Mann v Martin [2024] at the County Court in Leeds, the Claimant, Miss Amy Elisa Mann, brought a claim against the Defendant, Sarah Martin, concerning an injury she sustained on 19 May 2013.
The claim arose from an accident in which part of a garden boundary wall collapsed while the tenant’s daughter was leaning on it chatting to a neighbour, allegedly due to disrepair. The wall fall injured the then-seven-year-old Claimant with a significant compound fracture.
The case which was decided on 20 August 2024 brought in to question the landlord's duty of care under Section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA). The question arising was whether the wall really was in a state of disrepair and if so, should the landlord have been aware of the defect and taken action to make it good.
The tenant and the Claimant’s mother, Dianne Susse, entered into a tenancy agreement in April 2013 with the landlord Defendant for a rental property in Leeds. The Claimant, the daughter lived with her mother at this property.
Did the Defendant, as a landlord, owe a duty of care to the Claimant under the Defective Premises Act 1972, was the wall indeed in disrepair, and if so, should the Defendant have been aware of the defect?
The legal framework revolved around Section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, a clause which imposes a duty of care on landlords to ensure that premises are safe from personal injury caused by defects that they know about, or ought to have known about.
The court considered these issues:
His Honour Judge Malek concluded that the Defendant did owe a duty of care under Section 4(4) of the DPA. However, he qualified this judgements by says that this duty was limited to maintenance and repair and did not extend to a general duty to "make safe" any inherent or latent defects.
The judge cited Lafferty v Newark & Sherwood District Council [2016], a case which emphasised that Section 4(4) is a “deeming provision”. It extends the application of Section 4(1) to certain situations but does not impose additional obligations on landlords beyond maintenance and repair.
The Claimant argued that the wall must have been in disrepair as it collapsed. However, the judge found this argument to be insufficient as there could have been excessive force or an inherent or latent defect.
The court had explored these alternative explanations for the collapse, such as the use of excessive force or were there inherent defects, but ultimately it was concluded that the most likely cause was damage caused through work done on an adjacent fence by a contractor hired by the neighbouring property owner.
It was agreed that the Defendant did not know about the wall's defect, nor should she have known. A pre-tenancy inspection carried out by the Defendant’s did not reveal any defects with the wall, and therefore the court determined that the inspection was reasonable under the circumstances. The court also noted that the Claimant’s mother, who having had ample opportunity to observe the wall, did not notice any defects before the accident.
Finding that the Defendant was neither aware of the defect nor ought to have been aware of it, the court judgement concluded that there was no failure to take reasonable care on the part of the Defendant. The claim of negligence could not be sustained.
The claim for negligence was dismissed. While the accident was an unfortunate occurrence resulting in significant injury, the Defendant had not breached her duty of care under the DPA.
This judgment therefore emphasises the limitations of a landlord's responsibilities under Section 4(4). It reinforces the view that liability does not extend to inherent defects unless they result from a failure to maintain or repair.
This case emphasises the key legal points and the legal reasoning behind the court's decision and offers some valuable insights into a landlord’s maintenance and repairing obligations under tenancy agreements.
Despite the ruling in this case, The Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972) does impose a duty of care on all landlords to ensure premises are safe from defects that could cause injury.
The duty applies to those who let premises under a tenancy that includes an obligation or right to repair. The duty is owed to anyone, not only tenants, who might reasonably be expected to be affected by a defect.
The case emphasises the importance of pre and mid tenancy inspections. These should be fully documented in the form of a risk assessment which would in any case like this provide vital evidence.
Tags:
Comments