The Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides a valuable resource to housing disrepair lawyers who are not put off by having to utilise the Magistrates Court.
The majority of claims for housing disrepair are brought using Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This requires that the structure, service media and conveniences of the property are kept in a good and functional condition. These must decline in their state of repair from the date the property is let to the date the issue is reported to the landlord. If they are in a poor condition on the date the lease is signed, there is no requirement for the landlord to improve them.
Where the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is different, is that it enables tenants, occupiers and or their neighbours to bring criminal proceedings due to premises being a risk to health regardless of the condition they were in on the date any tenancy began.
This means that properties that are poorly designed or have inherent defects are caught by the legislation. A tenant in a property blighted by mould caused by inadequate ventilation is unlikely to have a claim under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as it is likely that the poor ventilation would be considered a design flaw and not disrepair. This is a common occurrence in older properties that were designed at a time when the specifics of modern usage could not reasonably have been foreseen.
Claims brought under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and its predecessor, the Public Health Act 1936, are primarily claims brought as statutory nuisances. A bad property is actionable if:
• it is in a state of repair which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
• there is an accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
• there are insects coming from an industrial, trade or business premises that could be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
• a well, tank, cistern or other such water carry facility used for the supply of water for domestic purposes is in a condition that renders the water liable to contamination prejudicial to health;
• a pond or other such watercourse is so foul it is prejudicial to health or a nuisance; or
• noise coming from the premises is such that it is prejudicial to health or a nuisance.
The legislation is intended to have a wide catchment. It is intended to cover all land and vessels in the public or private sector. The premises need not even be occupied as it is their condition and not the manner in which they are used that determines a breach.
The key matter to prove is not that there is a defect, which will normally be apparent, but that it is such that it poses either a nuisance or it could be prejudicial to health. However, the matters caught by the legislation are those that are public health matters that are or could be injurious or likely to cause injury to health.
If you are a tenant living in a property blighted by poor conditions that you believe could cause an injury to you or someone else, it is important to obtain clear advice from lawyers familiar with the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Not all cases can lead to a successful prosecution, but if a civil claim under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is unavailable, it is important to explore the other options available and so it is vital to instruct a lawyer who is familiar with them.
As lawyers, we know what we do well and, when something is outside of our expertise, we obtain advise and assistance from experts. We believe this should be applied to the way we operate as a business as well.
It is because of this that we are delighted to announce that we have appointed Alcimi as our social media partners.
You may have seen our posts on Facebook as Housing Disrepair Claims and this is the first of many campaigns to be designed and orchestrated by our colleagues at Alcimi. Paul Foules, Director of Alcimi said, “It’s great to work with Michael and the team at MJV Solicitors and we all hope and expect this to be he start of a long and fruitful partnership.”
At MJV Solicitors, we could not be happier to work with Paul and his team. They have provided us with a smooth and professional services. Social media is a vital marketing tool for any business and yet it is something that is easily neglected when clients’ cases need our attention. Managing Director, Michael Vincent said, “It’s always easy to put off the marketing of the business when there is work to do and so it’s great to have a team behind us that we can trust to run the social media side of things. The focus is going to be on the housing disrepair side of the business at the start and we are then going to try and focus on other areas such as will, lasting powers of attorney and conveyancing. i couldn’t be happier to have a professional and experienced firm such as Alcimi handling this for us”.
If you would like to follow our lead and take on a social media partner, Alcimi can be found at https://alcimi.com/ where there is an online contact form or called directly on 0161 296 2980. From our experience, it is a decision you will not regret.
by MJV&Co
Housing disrepair claimants will have a new weapon available to hem in March 2019. It goes without saying that houses let for people to live in should be fit for human habitation, but for many years, there has been no meaningful law requiring this.
Provision was included within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) at Section 8, which implied a term into tenancy agreements that, on the grant of a new tenancy, the property would be fit for human habitation and that it would be kept as such throughout.
The problem with Section 8 is that it only applies to tenancies where the rent is £80 in London or £52 elsewhere and there has been no inflationary adjustment of these limits.
In March 2019, the Humans (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘the Act’) comes into force and this has the effect of amending LTA 1985 to remove the limits and make the provisions applicable to most tenancies. The act can be found here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/34/enacted
Once operational, the Act will require the courts to consider whether a property is in a condition of acceptable:
(i) Repair;
(ii) Stability;
(iii) Freedom from damp;
(iv) Internal arrangement;
(v) Natural lighting;
(vi) Ventilation;
(vii) Water supply;
(viii) Drainage and sanitary conveniences;
(ix) Facilities for the preparation and cooking of food; and
(x) Facilities for the disposal of waste water.
A property is deemed to be unfit for human habitation, pursuant to the above requirements as found at Section 10 of the LTA 1985, if it is so far defective in one or more of these respects that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition. Tenants suffering from housing disrepair not covered by Section 11 may now have a claim that otherwise would have failed.
It is likely that the case law arising from the Act will continue in a similar fashion to that handed down under the LTA 1985. Some examples of properties that were deemed unfit for human habitation are:
(a) A small house where the only window could not be opened;
(b) A house where plaster was falling from the ceiling;
(c) A property where the ceiling had collapsed; and
(d) A home where the waste disposal system failed causing serious damp.
There are limitations on what is covered. There is no liability for parts not let to the tenant such as communal areas and occasional incursions from vermin from outside would not fall under the provisions.
A guide to standards for Section 8, given by Atkin LJ in 1926, was:
“If the state of repair of a house is such that by ordinary use damage may naturally be caused to the occupier, either in respect of personal injury to life or limb or injury to health, then the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.”
Despite this, the courts have taken an approach that the provisions should be limited to premises which can be made fit by the landlord at reasonable expense. This ruling in Buswell v Goodwin [1971] 1 WLR 92, CA has no basis in either Section 8 or the Act and is considered to be ripe for review by Luba, Foster and Prevatt in Repairs: tenants rights (5th edition).
Given the re-invigoration of the provisions of Section 8 by the Act, it shall be fascinating to see whether the Courts follow the decision in Buswell or take the opportunity to set a new bar for claims to ensure that landlords do not have the opportunity to rely on cost as an excuse for letting property considered unfit for human habitation.
