News from the Courts - Strange Names!
Sometimes cases are worth reporting to you just for the names.
A case in the Court of Appeal this month about a lavatory involved a landlord called Niazi (and you have to read that rather carefully) Services Limited and a gentleman by the name of Johannes Marinus Henricus Van der Loo. I promise I am not making this up. Mr Van der Loo was the tenant of a second floor flat paying a rent of £34,800 per year (honestly!). The restaurant on the ground floor and basement did some plumbing works, the effect of which was that there was an inadequate supply of water to Mr Van der Loo’s loo and flat upstairs. Mr Van der Loo argued that under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Niazi Services Limited was responsible for the water supply and they hadn’t done anything about the problem for 33 months and he was damned if he was going to pay all of his £34,800 per annum. Quite understandable, you may think.
The County Court Judge agreed with him but in the Court of Appeal it was pointed out that the problem was in the restaurant downstairs and that was nothing to do with Niazi Services Limited. The 1985 Act could not mean that a landlord was responsible for waterpipes in part of the building in which he had no interest. His covenant extended only to the flat.
Another case this month was a little nearer home and rather more down to earth. Mr and Mrs Ball were tenants of Plymouth City Council and brought a claim on the basis that their house was damp. The proceedings were under the same section 11 of the 1985 Act and the Defective Premises Act 1972. Many of you will have had tenants complaining about water streaming down walls, black mould, nasty smells etc etc. Sometimes it is because there is a defect such as a broken gutter or drainage pipe which is making the wall damp and that’s the landlord’s problem. Sometimes it is because the tenant closes all the windows, blocks off the draughts and spends all day indoors having showers and boiling kettles for endless cups of tea and that’s not the landlord’s problem. There was a similar argument here with expert surveyors called by each side but in the end Mr and Mrs Ball simply couldn’t prove that the root cause of the moisture problem was damp penetration through the external walls. There was evidence about leakage around windows and signs of dampness around the flat roof timbers above a dormer window. They talked about a crack in the chimney. The Judge also wanted to know about why it was that a firm of Liverpool solicitors was acting for tenants in Plymouth (disgraceful!) and there were mumblings about cold calling and ambulance chasing. It sounds as if it was a trying day for all concerned. It was very hot, there were interruptions, the case went on until 6:15. But at the end of the day the Judge decided for Plymouth City Council. Mr and Mrs Ball appealed but the Judge decided that they had not made out their case and the original judgement had not been influenced by irrelevant issues.
Martin Follett
The County Court Judge agreed with him but in the Court of Appeal it was pointed out that the problem was in the restaurant downstairs and that was nothing to do with Niazi Services Limited. The 1985 Act could not mean that a landlord was responsible for waterpipes in part of the building in which he had no interest. His covenant extended only to the flat.
Another case this month was a little nearer home and rather more down to earth. Mr and Mrs Ball were tenants of Plymouth City Council and brought a claim on the basis that their house was damp. The proceedings were under the same section 11 of the 1985 Act and the Defective Premises Act 1972. Many of you will have had tenants complaining about water streaming down walls, black mould, nasty smells etc etc. Sometimes it is because there is a defect such as a broken gutter or drainage pipe which is making the wall damp and that’s the landlord’s problem. Sometimes it is because the tenant closes all the windows, blocks off the draughts and spends all day indoors having showers and boiling kettles for endless cups of tea and that’s not the landlord’s problem. There was a similar argument here with expert surveyors called by each side but in the end Mr and Mrs Ball simply couldn’t prove that the root cause of the moisture problem was damp penetration through the external walls. There was evidence about leakage around windows and signs of dampness around the flat roof timbers above a dormer window. They talked about a crack in the chimney. The Judge also wanted to know about why it was that a firm of Liverpool solicitors was acting for tenants in Plymouth (disgraceful!) and there were mumblings about cold calling and ambulance chasing. It sounds as if it was a trying day for all concerned. It was very hot, there were interruptions, the case went on until 6:15. But at the end of the day the Judge decided for Plymouth City Council. Mr and Mrs Ball appealed but the Judge decided that they had not made out their case and the original judgement had not been influenced by irrelevant issues.
Martin Follett
Truro Business Park, Truro, Cornwall TR4 9NH T: 01872 241700
© Follett Stock Solicitors. All rights reserved.
Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)