Repairing obligations

Citation

Waterson, G. and Lee, R. (2001), "Repairing obligations", Property Management, Vol. 19 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.2001.11319bab.007

Repairing obligations

Repairing obligations

Hallisey v. Petmoor Development Ltd [2000] EGCS 124

In this case the principal question for the court was whether the landlord was liable for the repair of a flat roof above the claimant's seventh-floor flat. The flat was in an eight-storey block, and the part of the roof in question formed the surface of a terrace or roof-garden for the top floor flat above. The relevant part of the roof (or terrace), comprised a concrete slab, on which had been laid a 10mm layer of asphalt, which in turn was covered by ceramic tiles. The roof was in a state of disrepair as it would appear that temperature changes had caused the asphalt layer to shift, and in consequence water was seeping into the claimant's flat below. The landlord's repairing covenant required the landlord to keep in good repair and condition "the main structure of the building including the principal internal structures and the exterior walls and the foundations and the roof of the building … [and] all other parts of the building not included in this demise or in the demise of any other flat".

The court held that the roof (or terrace) formed part of the "main structure" of the building, and made a summary judgement to that effect. Also, and perhaps rather unusually, the court made an order for specific performance requiring the defendant landlord to carry out the necessary works of repair, presumably on the basis that in this case damages would not have been a sufficient remedy.

Welsh v. Greenwich LBC [2000]

In this case the issue was slightly different: the flat in question was in a 1920s built block, and the external walls had been constructed of solid nine-inch brick with an external render. There was no thermal insulation and in consequence the flat suffered from severe "black spot mould growth" on the internal faces of the walls due to the effects of condensation. In previous cases it has been held that such defects do not amount to "disrepair". (See e.g. McNerny v. Lambeth LBC (1989) 19 EG 77) and if the tenant has been able to find a legal remedy it has been more likely to have been founded on proceedings for statutory nuisance than on an action for breach of covenant (see e.g. GLC v. Tower Hamlets LBC (1983) 15 HLR 54).

In the instant case, however, the relevant covenant was drawn rather more widely than is customary. The landlord had covenanted "to maintain the dwelling in good condition and repair". The Court of Appeal concluded unanimously that the words "to maintain … in good condition" added an additional and different obligation to the basic repairing obligation. The flat was not "in good condition" and accordingly the landlord was liable. The order of the court below, for the payment of agreed damages of £9,000, was upheld.