Whether premises to be maintained “in good condition” – Whether installation kept in “in proper working order”
It may be recalled (if not, see
In principle, the above proposition should not assist a defendant who has assumed an obligation to keep premises “in good condition”, or equipment “in proper working order”. However, before accepting liability, the defendant should , among other things, check whether:
(a) the matters complained of fell within the scope of the covenant: see Welsh v Greenwich London Borough Council [2000] EGCS 84, which concerned a council tenant’s complaint of damp caused by bad insulation. Although the complaint was upheld, it was far from clear whether the “plain English” landlord covenant extended to the spot and mould growth in question: see Sandi Murdoch’s
(b) in the case of equipment, the claimant is demanding a performance level higher than that contemplated by the lease: compare and contrast Southwark London Borough Council v Long [2002] EWCA Civ 403; [2002] 15 EG 133 (CS) (no obligation to replace working equipment) and O’Connor v Old Etonian Housing Association Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 150; [2002] 1 EGLR 38 (defendant liable for equipment that could no longer cope).
Related item:
Whether premises to be maintained “in good condition” – Whether installation kept in “in proper working order”
It may be recalled (if not, see PP 2002/69) that where a covenant speaks solely in terms of “repair”, the covenantor (defendant) is not obliged to correct or replace a malfunctioning item unless that item has been damaged, or is causing damage to other property within the covenant.
In principle, the above proposition should not assist a defendant who has assumed an obligation to keep premises “in good condition”, or equipment “in proper working order”. However, before accepting liability, the defendant should , among other things, check whether:
(a) the matters complained of fell within the scope of the covenant: see Welsh v Greenwich London Borough Council [2000] EGCS 84, which concerned a council tenant’s complaint of damp caused by bad insulation. Although the complaint was upheld, it was far from clear whether the “plain English” landlord covenant extended to the spot and mould growth in question: see Sandi Murdoch’s Not so limited liability Estates Gazette 21 October 2000, p172.
(b) in the case of equipment, the claimant is demanding a performance level higher than that contemplated by the lease: compare and contrast Southwark London Borough Council v Long [2002] EWCA Civ 403; [2002] 15 EG 133 (CS) (no obligation to replace working equipment) and O’Connor v Old Etonian Housing Association Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 150; [2002] 1 EGLR 38 (defendant liable for equipment that could no longer cope).
Related item:
Keep up with supplies Estates Gazette 13 April 2002, p131.
