Bole & Anor v Huntsbuild Ltd & Anor

Under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, whether a dwelling is fit for habitation is a question of fact. The test covers both dangerous defects and defects of quality which make the dwelling unsuitable for its purpose. Imminent collapse is not required, and minor defects are insufficient. The court must consider the effect of defects as a whole, including consequences that were not apparent when the dwelling was completed. A defect affecting one part may render the dwelling unfit overall. Where inadequate foundations cause continuing heave, widespread cracking and related risks, the dwelling may be unfit even though it remains occupied and is unlikely to collapse. Remedial damages may include underpinning where that is the only reliable means of achieving enduring stability.

The claimants purchased a newly built house from Huntsbuild Ltd. The foundations had been designed by Richard Money Associates and were too shallow following the removal of trees. Subsequent clay rehydration caused heave, extensive cracking and continuing movement.

The claimants claimed against Huntsbuild for breach of contract and under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, and against Richard Money Associates under the Act. The principal issues were whether the defendants had failed to construct or design adequate foundations, whether the house was fit for habitation when completed, and what remedial scheme and damages were recoverable.

1. Liability. Huntsbuild breached its contract by failing to comply with NHBC Standard 4.2 and also breached section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. Richard Money Associates failed to exercise the professional standard required by section 1. It should have specified foundations at least three metres deep and clearly stated the required depths on the drawings.
2. Fitness for habitation. The question was whether the house, as built, was fit for habitation, not whether each room was separately habitable. The court adopted the approach that unfitness is fact-sensitive and includes defects of quality as well as dangerous defects. Imminent collapse is not a necessary condition. The effect of the defects had to be assessed cumulatively, including latent consequences which became apparent only after completion.
3. The inadequate foundations caused continuing heave, widespread cracking and other defects. The damage reached the more serious BRE categories. Cracking affected fire safety, weather-tightness, sound insulation, thermal performance and aspects of structural stability. The property was therefore unsuitable for its purpose and unfit for habitation under section 1.
4. Remedy. The piled raft solution was reasonable. It was the only scheme which could confidently provide stable foundations and stop future movement. The cheaper scheme would require substantial further repairs, temporary accommodation and expenses, while the extent and cost of later damage remained uncertain.
5. The court awarded the claimants £218,616.91, comprising £214,116.91 for remedial works and associated losses and £4,500 general damages, plus interest. The Part 20 claims were not struck out and further submissions were reserved if necessary.