Quick v Taff Ely Borough Council

A covenant to keep the structure and exterior of a dwelling-house in repair addresses physical deterioration or damage. It does not require a landlord to remedy mere lack of amenity, inherent inefficiency, or an original design defect which has caused no relevant disrepair.

Where an inherent defect has caused physical damage, repair may require work which removes the defect and incidentally improves the building. The work must nevertheless be a realistic and reasonably necessary means of making good the damage. A repairing covenant does not require either party to provide a better dwelling merely because improved design would alleviate condensation or other unsatisfactory living conditions.

Quick v Taff Ely Borough Council concerned a weekly council tenancy of a small house affected by severe condensation. The tenant sought specific performance and damages for breach of the implied repairing covenant under section 32(1) of the Housing Act 1961.

His Honour Judge Francis in the Pontypridd County Court held that the council had to replace the metal-framed windows and insulate the lintels, as well as awarding global damages for condensation and water penetration. The council accepted liability for water penetration but appealed the finding on condensation. The central issue was whether the poor design of the windows and lintels, without material damage to them, amounted to disrepair of the structure or exterior.

1. The appeal was allowed unanimously. Dillon LJ gave the first judgment; Lawton and Neill LJJ agreed. The county court’s order was set aside, save for its costs and legal-aid taxation provisions, and the case was remitted for reassessment of damages attributable to the admitted water-penetration breaches.
2. The implied covenant in section 32(1) of the Housing Act 1961 was an ordinary covenant to keep the structure and exterior in repair. Disrepair concerned the physical state of the subject matter of the covenant. It did not extend to lack of amenity or inefficiency in the original design of a building.
3. An inherent defect could require remedial work under a repairing covenant where it had caused physical damage and correcting it was the only realistic means of repairing that damage. Such work could incidentally improve the premises without exceeding the covenant. The necessary starting point, however, was existing disrepair of the structure or exterior.
4. There was no evidence that the metal windows or concrete lintels had deteriorated since the tenancy began, or that they were physically damaged. Their design contributed to condensation, but that did not make them out of repair. Damage to decorations, furnishings, bedding and clothing was outside the subject matter of this covenant.
5. There was limited structural disrepair in rotten parts of wooden window surrounds and some plaster damage. Those defects could be repaired directly. The evidence did not show that replacing the windows or insulating the lintels was reasonably necessary to effect those repairs. The proposed works would alleviate, rather than establish a cure for, the condensation problem.

• Court of Appeal: Allowed the council’s appeal, set aside the substantive order, and remitted the case for reassessment of damages consistently with the court’s judgments.
• Pontypridd County Court: On 2 November 1984, His Honour Judge Francis held that the council was in breach of the implied repairing covenant in relation to condensation and water penetration. He awarded global damages and ordered specific performance.