Stevens v County Borough Of Blaenau Gwent

A local authority landlord is not liable in negligence merely because a tenant reports a foreseeable risk and the authority declines to depart from a generally justified safety policy. The claimant must establish a duty of care arising in the circumstances, breach, and consequential damage. A duty may arise where the authority controls an existing hazard or has assumed responsibility, but Stockley v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council [1986] 279 EG 677 did not establish a broad duty to abate every danger reported by a tenant. Without evidence of exceptional risk, an express request for the particular device, or an undertaking to investigate or act, the authority need not install special safety equipment. Subjective parental concern alone does not invalidate the policy.

The claimant, aged two, fell from an unrestrained first-floor casement window in a house let by the respondent local authority to his parents. His mother had previously asked for window locks after a child had been found on the sill and after security concerns. The authority refused under a fire-safety policy against window locks. After the accident, it installed an effective safety catch.

The claim was initially pleaded in negligence and/or breach of statutory duty under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957; it proceeded in common-law negligence because the authority was not an occupier. HHJ Masterman found liability by analogy with Stockley v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council [1986] 279 EG 677, reasoning that the authority should have given the request individual consideration. The appeal concerned whether the communications created a duty to find and fit a special child-proof catch, or required an exception to the general policy.

Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Justice Potter gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Carnwath and Mr Justice Bodey agreeing.

1. Scope of Stockley. The first-instance judge was wrong to treat Stockley v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council [1986] 279 EG 677 as establishing a general duty to abate any danger reported by a tenant. In that case the council was already under a duty concerning an existing emergency and an external hazard in premises under its control. The present case involved no emergency or external threat requiring council action.
2. General negligence framework. A local authority landlord may in appropriate circumstances be liable under the general law of negligence for foreseeable injury caused by its acts or omissions. As in other negligence claims, the claimant must establish a duty of care, breach, and consequential damage. Here there was no general landlord duty to provide safety locks and no hidden, special, or exceptional danger requiring an exception to the policy.
3. Application of the no-locks policy. The policy reasonably balanced the risk of children falling from windows against the risk of people being trapped by fire. The authority was entitled to apply it absent evidence of exceptional risk. The mother’s subjective concerns did not, by themselves, invalidate the policy. Even if the request had not received individual consideration, there was no evidence that such consideration would have produced a different decision. The authority was entitled to assume appropriate vigilance and ordinary good sense, including moving climbable furniture away from the sill. The policy was supported by the experience referred to in Adams v Rhymney Valley District Council [2000] 33 HLR 41.
4. Special safety catch. The mother had requested locks, not the special catch later installed. She had not been prohibited from fitting such a catch, and the authority had made no promise or undertaking to investigate or provide one. Its post-accident inquiries and installation did not establish a pre-existing duty or assumption of responsibility.
5. The claim therefore failed at the duty stage. The appeal was allowed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The appeal was allowed under [2004] EWCA Civ 715. The court rejected the finding that the respondent was liable in negligence.
2. Cardiff Civil Justice Centre — HHJ Masterman found the respondent local authority liable in common-law negligence, treating its failure to give individual consideration to the safety request as a breach of duty.