Alker v Collingwood Housing Association

A landlord’s duty under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 is confined by the scope of the applicable obligation to maintain or repair. A dangerous feature is not a relevant defect merely because reasonable works could make it safer.

An obligation to repair ordinarily arises only where the relevant object is out of repair. Neither an obligation to maintain nor one to keep premises in good condition creates a general duty to make the premises safe. A right of entry under section 4(4) may create a deemed maintenance or repairing obligation, but it does not enlarge the permitted description of work or create a statutory warranty of safety.

The claimant was seriously injured when she pushed against an ordinary annealed-glass panel in the front door of her rented home and the glass broke. The panel was hazardous but had not been broken or otherwise in disrepair before the accident. The landlord had a contractual obligation to repair and maintain specified parts of the property, including external doors, and a right to enter to inspect and undertake repairs and improvements.

The Manchester County Court rejected liability under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 because the landlord had no actual notice of disrepair. It nevertheless entered judgment for the claimant under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, with damages to be assessed.

The landlord appealed. The central issue was whether dangerous ordinary glass which was not in disrepair constituted a “relevant defect” for section 4 purposes.

1. Appeal allowed. Laws LJ, with whom Carnwath and Moore-Bick LJJ agreed, held that the glass panel was not a relevant defect under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. Its dangerous character did not establish that it required maintenance or repair.

2. Section 4 confines the statutory duty to defects arising from, or continuing because of, a failure to perform an applicable maintenance or repairing obligation. The duty therefore extends no further than the relevant covenant. Section 4(4) may treat a landlord with an exercisable right of entry as having an obligation for the relevant description of maintenance or repair. It does not expand that description of work or impose liability for defects unrelated to maintenance or disrepair.

3. A duty to repair or maintain cannot be equated with a duty to make premises safe. Repair ordinarily presupposes deterioration or damage requiring the relevant object to be made good. Maintenance overlaps with repair but likewise does not encompass every alteration capable of removing a hazard. An obligation to keep premises in good condition, even if it includes putting them into good condition, does not become an obligation to put them into a safe condition.

4. McAuley v Bristol City Council [1992] QB 134 was distinguishable because the dangerous garden step in that case was unquestionably in disrepair. The restrictive construction was supported by McNerny v Lambeth Borough Council [1989] 19 EG 77 and Lee v Leeds City Council [2002] 1 WLR 1488. Those authorities establish that section 4 is tied to the law’s recognised concept of maintenance or repair and does not impose a general obligation to remedy defects.

5. The County Court’s approach would have converted section 4 from protection against the consequences of want of maintenance or repair into a statutory warranty that premises were reasonably safe. The statutory language and policy did not support that substantial extension of landlords’ liability. Any such extension was a matter for Parliament.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The landlord’s appeal was allowed unanimously. The court held that the intact but hazardous glass panel was not a relevant defect under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.
• Manchester County Court: Mr Recorder Clayton QC entered judgment for the claimant, with damages to be assessed, on 7 June 2006. He held the landlord liable under section 4, although the claims based on a common law duty and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 did not proceed successfully.