Category Archives: Nuisance

All nuisance related posts

Disrepair: La luta continua!

2013 was a difficult year for claimant disrepair. Changes in legal aid funding have made it all but impossible to pursue a disrepair claim under legal aid alone, as funding is only available for an order to carry out repairs to where there is serious risk to health or well being of the tenant or other occupiers, and not for further repairs or the damages claim (although full funding remains for a counterclaim to a possession claim, which can be brought after the possession order).

For those carrying out disrepair claims under Conditional Fee Agreements, success fees ceased being recoverable from the Defendant, as did ATE premiums, but, despite … Read the full post

Also posted in Assured Shorthold tenancy, assured-tenancy, Disrepair, FLW case note, Housing law - All, Leasehold and shared ownership, secure-tenancy | | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Tempest Tossed?

Does the landlord’s repairing duty under Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 extend to damage by fire, flood or tempest?

LB Hammersmith and Fulham v Carty is a County Court judgment reported on Hardwicke Chamber’s site which raises some interesting issues on the interpretation of Section 11(2)(b) of LTA 1985. This provides:

(2) The covenant implied by subsection (1) (“the lessor’s repairing covenant”) shall not be construed as requiring the lessor—
(a) [...]
(b) to rebuild or reinstate the premises in the case of destruction or damage by fire, or by tempest, flood or other inevitable accident, or
(c) [...]

Ms C was a secure tenant of H&F (whose … Read the full post

Also posted in Assured Shorthold tenancy, assured-tenancy, Disrepair, FLW case note, Housing law - All, secure-tenancy | | Leave a comment

Not smelling of roses

Dobson & Ors v Thames Water Utilities Ltd (No 2) [2011] EWHC 3253 (TCC)

This is very late as a post. My excuse is that the judgment runs to well over 200 pages, it is very complex and, frankly, other stuff happened. This has sat as a part finished draft for ages. But finally here it is.

This is the finale of a long running saga, involving the High Court and Court of Appeal. At issue was Thames Water’s liability for alleged odours and mosquito infestations affecting people living in properties near the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works in Middlesex. As this hearing involves issues of liability and quantum for negligence, … Read the full post

Also posted in FLW article, Housing law - All | | Leave a comment

It never rains but it pours

The ECHR has recently delivered its judgement in Kolyadenko v Russia , which (apart from demonstrating the reach of the ECHR jurisdiction to the remote corners of Asia) is a useful case applying principles we would recognise under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

The 6 applicants in this case are residents of Vladivostok, who brought proceedings against the Municipal Authority and the Water Company alleging responsibility for damage caused to their homes and belongings in a flood which occurred on 7th August 2001.

The flood started with the release of excess water from the nearby dam following a period of exceptionally heavy rainfall. This excess water travelled through … Read the full post

Also posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All | | Leave a comment

Pigeons in the flat alas*

Siveter v Wandsworth LBC (2012) CA (Civ Div) 16/02/2012 [Not on Bailii yet, just a Lawtel note]

S was the secure tenant of Wandsworth in a 4th floor flat. She had complained to Wandsworth about pigeons nesting outside her flat, in a cupboard that had an opening into the flat. It was not in dispute that the pigeons had poultry mites. Wandsworth sent pest control who removed the pigeons and disinfect the nest.

However poultry mites remained and moved into the flat for fresh hosts. They multiplied, so that S and her son could no longer remain in the flat as both were being bitten.

S claimed for damages on … Read the full post

Also posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All, secure-tenancy | | Tagged | 2 Comments

Don’t be a newcomer

One of the best known judgment in the English speaking world is Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966. The start of the judgment of Denning LJ (for it is he) is worth setting out, just to remind you all:

In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last seventy years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club-house for

Read the full post

Also posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All | | Tagged , , | Leave a comment