Stairway to Litigation

Thursday 11 October 2012

Under the Defective Premises Act 1972, a landlord owes a duty of care to anyone who might be affected by defects present in the premises which they let. In a worrying decision for social and private landlords, the High Court has ruled that a landlord can be liable for not carrying out repairs even where they do not have notice of the defect.

In the case of Hannon –v- Hillingdon Homes Ltd 2012, the Claimant was fixing a boiler at the home of a tenant of the Defendant. A previous tenant had created an open-plan staircase by removing the banisters from the stairs 20 years previously. Mr Hannon was quickly descending the stairs having heard a noise from the boiler, when he fell from the stairs into the living area, seriously injuring his ankle. He issued a claim against the landlord.

The Court found that the landlord was liable. The Court determined that the banisters were part of the structure of the building and an integral part of the staircase, the absence of which constituted a defect.

The landlord sought to argue that the tenant had removed the banisters in breach of the tenancy agreement. However, the landlord’s repairing obligation detailed in the lease did not exclude disrepair caused by the tenant. As the obligation was unqualified, the landlord was liable. The Defective Premises Act does not take into account where the fault lies for creating the defect when establishing liability.

The lease contained a requirement for the tenant to report any defect to the landlord or its agents. Numerous independent contractors had visited the property during the tenancy and had done so as agents for the landlord. The Court found that each of these visits constituted notice to the landlord of the defect because the absence of the banisters was so obvious.

Furthermore, the landlord had the right to inspect and repair the property and so was liable for not carrying out those repairs regardless of whether it had had notice of the defect.

The Court did not accept the argument that the contractor should have refused to carry out the work, which would only be the case where the structure of the building had become so unsafe that it was too dangerous for anyone to enter, including the owner. The Court also rejected an argument for contributory negligence on the basis that the Claimant was moving at speed down the staircase, which was considered reasonable in the circumstances.

The award of Damages for the Claimant is yet to be quantified, but is likely to be significant given the extent of the injury and the effect on his mobility and future prospects of a return to work.

This case provides a salutary reminder of the extent of a landlord’s responsibility. Leases should be carefully drafted to ensure that landlords are protected where their tenants alter their properties in such a way that injury is caused to visitors.