Lee v Leeds City Council; Ratcliffe and Others v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 21 Jan 2002

The claimants were tenants who sought damages from their local authority landlords, for failing to remedy defects such as mould, mildew, and condensation in the dwellings let to them. The defects were a result of the design of the building. They asked the court to revisit the law settled in the Quick case in the light now of the Human Rights Act.
Held: Quick was not decided per incuriam. There was neither common law nor statutory reason to think that a general burden such as that requested was in fact imposed by law. The law allowed for repair of properties where the defect was one which arose from being ‘out of repair’. The Human Rights Act and the Convention did not assist the claimants.

Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Tuckey and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Times 29-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 6, [2002] 1 EGLR 103
Bailii, Bailii
Human Rights Act 1998 6, European Convention on Human Rights Art 8, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11, Defective Premises Act 1972 4
England and Wales
CitedQuick v Taff Ely Borough Council CA 1986
Because of fungus, mould growth and dampness, the tenant’s council house was virtually unfit for human habitation in the winter when the condensation was at its worst. Section 32(1) of the 1961 Act implied in the tenancy a covenant by the council to . .

Cited by:
CitedDunn v Bradford Metropolitan District Council etc CA 31-Jul-2002
The applicants were local authority secure tenants. Possession orders had been made, but they sought delay in the order after they had already surrendered possession.
Held: Parliament had given wide discretion to the courts to find a balance . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.167481