Three Valleys Water Plc v Fradkina

Under sections 142(1) and 144 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the occupier of premises supplied with water is treated as the person to whom the supply is provided and is primarily liable for the charges.

A private agreement between landlord and tenant that the landlord will pay does not provide a defence to the water undertaker’s claim unless the undertaker is party to an agreement making contrary provision. Complaints against the landlord or about the condition of the premises do not alter that statutory liability.

The applicant was a tenant who said that her leases made her landlord responsible for water charges because she received social security benefit. She alleged that the landlord had failed to use funds provided for that purpose, leading the water company to claim arrears from her.

The water company claimed £230.96 for charges relating to the applicant’s current property. The applicant brought a separate claim seeking repayment of sums paid for water supplied to a previous property between 1991 and 1995.

A district judge gave judgment for the water company and struck out the applicant’s claim as disclosing no cause of action. His Honour Judge Hamilton dismissed the appeals because the notice of appeal disclosed no valid grounds. The applicant sought permission to appeal, raising the question whether her agreement with the landlord displaced her statutory liability to the water company.

Lord Justice Schiemann gave the substantive reasons. Lord Justice Robert Walker and Mr Justice Lloyd agreed.

1. Disposition. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. There was no order for costs.
2. Statutory liability. Section 142(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991 gives a relevant undertaker power to demand and recover charges from a person to whom it provides services. Section 144 provides that, subject to contrary provision in an agreement to which the undertaker is party, water supplied to premises is treated as a service provided to the occupiers for the time being.
3. Application to a tenant. The statutory effect was that the applicant, as occupier, was treated as the person to whom the water had been supplied and was primarily liable to pay the water company. Her agreement with the landlord that the landlord should pay on her behalf did not constitute a defence to the water company’s claim.
4. Separate complaints. Any failure by the landlord to pay, or any disrepair affecting the premises, might give rise to complaints against the landlord, but did not undermine the water company’s statutory position. On the material available, remission to the county court would have led to the same conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 14 May 2001, the court dismissed the application for permission to appeal: [2001] EWCA Civ 826.
• Luton County Court. His Honour Judge Hamilton dismissed the appeals from the district judge’s orders on 5 October 1999, holding that the notice of appeal disclosed no valid grounds.
• District Judge Hewetson-Brown. On 21 September 1999, the district judge gave judgment for the water company in its claim and struck out the applicant’s claim as disclosing no cause of action.