The pipes in a block of flats had been changed from 1.5 to 1 inch. This was all right for some 6 years until the water pressure of the supply to the building dropped. The issue was whether there was a breach of the s.11(1) covenant. The landlords appealed saying that the section imposed upon them a duty to repair only, and not an obligation to ensure that the pipes were physically or mechanically capable of supplying water.
Held: There was a distinction between the duty to keep in repair, and the duty to keep in proper working order. It was not in proper working order if, through a defect in construction or design, it was not supplying what it should. The landlord was not under an obligation to provide s supply which could survive any changes in circumstances, but he did have a duty to maintain a system which could reasonably cope with any changes in the supply which might be expected. ‘an installation will be in proper working order if it is able to function under those conditions of supply that it is reasonable to anticipate will prevail.’
Judges:
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Buxton
Citations:
Times 06-Mar-2002, Gazette 21-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 150
Links:
Statutes:
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11(1)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Niazi Services Ltd v Johannes Marinus Henricus Van Der Loo CA 10-Feb-2004
The tenant counterclaimed an action by the landlord for rent saying the property had not been repaired under the landlord’s covenant. The water supply had for 33 months been weak, leading to only a trickle of water being available, and there had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167723