Mann v Martin (2024) EW Misc 23 (CC) – a rare case of a standalone section 4 Defective Premises Act 1972 claim.

Standalone Section 4 Defective Premises Act 1972 (“DPA”) claims are rare as they are usually brought in tandem with a housing disrepair claim.

Facts

In this case, the daughter of an assured shorthold tenant, Ms Mann, suffered an injury, namely a fracture to her leg, when a dividing garden wall collapsed.

Evidence revealed that there was an adjoining section of fence, with a post next to the wall which the next door neighbour had replaced not long after the tenant and her daughter moved into the premises. ?This was the most likely contributed or caused the wall to collapse.

Ms Mann (“the Claimant”) brought a Defective Premises Act claim under section 4, against the landlord, arguing that the wall was in a state of disrepair, leading to it’s collapse and her subsequent injuries.

Legal Issues:

Section 4 of the DPA implies a ?duty of care in virtue of obligation or right to repair ?a property let under a tenancy, which puts on the landlord an obligation to the tenant for the maintenance or repair of the premises, the landlord owes to all persons who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects in the state of the premises a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that they are reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property caused by a relevant defect. The duty is owed if the landlord knows (whether as the result of being notified by the tenant or otherwise) or if he ought in all the circumstances to have known of the relevant defect.

Citing section (26) & (37) of Rogerson v Bolsover District Council (2019) EWCA Civ 226 CA, the Court had to consider whether the relevant defect was or should have been discovered as a result of an inspection carried out by the landlord, granting they had taken reasonable steps to carry out an inspection.

Therefore, the issues for the court to determine were:

1.???? Whether the Defendant owed this duty of care to the Claimant

2.???? Whether the Defendant was aware of the condition of the wall and whether a reasonable inspection would have uncovered any defects.

Findings:

The Courts did find that there was a duty of care under section 4(4) however maintained that this was limited to issues relating to maintenance or repair, rather than a construction defect or to “make safe”.

Testimonies from the Claimant revealed that they had not engaged in any activity which would have comprised the wall, leading to its collapse and the Defendant averred that they were not aware of any defect in the wall. They stated that no defect was revealed in the inspection conducted before the incident.

The Claimant then went on to argue that this inspection was inadequate. However, the Court ultimately found that the tenant had not noted any defect and had leant against that wall on multiple occasions, supporting the argument that the defect was visible.

Conclusion

The claim was dismissed, and the judge found that there was simply nothing in the evidence to show the Defendant should have known about the defect that arose as a result of the work carried out to the adjacent fence post. The judge stated that the Defendant could not be under an obligation to carry out a specific inspection of the work, once it had been completed. Furthermore, there was no evidence support the argument that the Defendant was aware or should have been aware of any defect in the wall.

This case highlights the scope of Section 4 of the DPA and to what extent it can be applied. We can see that even when the landlord has a duty of care, it is limited to repairs and maintenance and does not extend to making the premises safe. A crucial element of liability is also the landlord’s knowledge of the defect, and if they should have been aware of the defect.