Landlord and tenant – Defective premises – Victorian house let on tenancy – Back staircase having no bannister or handrail by date of letting – Appellant falling down stairs – Whether respondent landlord liable under section 4 of Defective Premises Act 1972 – Whether absence of handrail amounting to relevant defect which respondent having duty to repair – Whether amounting to “disrepair” – Appeal dismissed
The respondent let a Victorian property to a company in which the appellant and her business partner had an interest. The tenancy agreement contained the statutory covenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, including those requiring the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises, and also contained an obligation on the tenant to permit the landlord to enter the premises for the purpose of inspection and repair.
The property contained two staircases, namely a main staircase and a back staircase for service purposes. The back staircase was steep and enclosed by walls on both sides. It had no han rail or bannister, although the remains of a post both at the top and bottom of the lower flight of stairs suggested that there might have been a bannister at some stage in the building’s history. While on a visit to her business partner, the appellant slipped and fell as she walked up the back staircase. She brought a claim against the respondent for damages under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.
The appellant contended that the staircase was a part of the structure of the premises which it was the respondent’s responsibility as landlord to maintain and repair, as was the bannister/handrail which formed part of that staircase. She argued that the removal of the bannister/handrail had made the premises unsafe and that its absence was a “relevant defect” which the respondent had a duty to repair.
The respondent admitted that the local district council had served an improvement notice on him requiring the installation of a handrail in relation to a “Category 1 Hazard”, but nonetheless denied that the stairs were unsafe without a handrail. He argued that, since there was no handrail when the tenancy commenced, the installation of one would amount to improving or making the premises safe, whereas his only obligation was to repair and maintain.
At first instance, the recorder found as a fact that the accident would not have happened had there been a handrail. However, he held that there was no general duty on a landlord to make the premises safe for the tenant and that the duty was only to keep the premises, taken as they were at the beginning of the tenancy, in repair and maintained thereafter. He accordingly concluded that there was no obligation to fit a handrail so as to make the staircase safe. The appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The appellant had not established that the premises were in disrepair. The back staircase was of a kind found in hundreds of old buildings across the country. Given the narrowness of the tread and the steepness of the flight of steps, particularly where it turned a corner, it was doubtless a hazard without a handrail. But, as unsafe as it might have been, there was nothing about it to justify the description of being in disrepair. The walls and stairs themselves were apparently sound and there was nothing wrong with the floor covering. Furthermore, there never had been a handrail on the staircase at any relevant time. To place the respondent landlord under an obligation to fit a handrail in those circumstances would amount to placing him under an obligation to improve the premises or make them safe, which was beyond the reach of his covenant. The appellant’s claim failed for that reason: Alker v Collingwood Housing Association [2007] 1 WLR 2230 applied.
Per curiam: Since the claim failed on the “disrepair” issue, it was not necessary to decide whether the staircase and missing bannister formed part of the structure of the premises. However, it was doubtful that the appellant could establish that a bannister was ever part of the structure of the back service staircase and, therefore, of the premises. She might nonetheless have been able to bring her claim within section 4(4) of the 1972 Act on the basis that, where there as a right to enter and inspect and repair, the landlord’s duty was not limited to the repair of structure. However, a determination of that point would require a closer examination of the case law.
Charles Davey (instructed by direct access) appeared for the appellant; Jonathan Mitchell (instructed by direct access) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
