Section 11 (1) (b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – Inadequate supply of water to flats in block during period of low water pressure in the locality – Means available to landlord to maintain supply to flats – Whether landlord had failed to keep installation in proper working order – Tenants’ appeal allowed
The appellants, who were tenants of flats in north London, used water supplied by pipes which passed through the common parts of the block. In 1986 the landlord replaced the 1.25in diameter pipes with 1in pipes. Between 1992 and 1998 (the shortage period), the tenants received inadequate supplies because increased local usage had caused a reduction in the pressure of the supply to the block. Thereafter normal supplies were resumed following the construction by the water authority of a new pumping station. It was common ground that no shortage would have been experienced if the landlords had either installed 1.25in diameter pipes and/or a booster pump.
In county court proceedings relating to the shortage period, the tenants, while accepting that the pipes had not been in disrepair, contended that the landlord had failed to keep the pipes in proper working order, in breach of the covenant implied by section 11(b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The trial judge rejected the tenants’ claim, holding that the drop in pressure was a matter outside the control of the landlord, which had at all material times installed pipes that were perfectly capable of working properly, provided that the statutory undertaker supplied water at sufficient pressure. The tenants appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The landlord’s obligation under section 11(i) (b) of the Act was to ensure that the installations in each flat, and also in the remainder of the block so far as they served the flats in question, were mechanically capable of supplying water to the flats. As long as there was a supply of water to the block (the landlord not being responsible for interruptions outside his control), the installations had to be physically capable of ensuring a maintained supply of water. No contrary conclusion could be drawn from Campden Hill Towers Ltd v Gardner [1977] 1 EGLR 23 or from Wycombe Health Authority v Barnett [1982] 2 EGLR 35. The tenants had rightly relied upon certain observations by Lord Edmund-Davies in Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239 269.
Paul Staddon (instructed by Wilson Howard) appeared for the appellant; Ranjit Bhose (instructed by Prince Evans) appeared for the respondent.
Alan Cooklin, barrister
