Landlord offering alternative accommodation pending completion of works to property occupied by tenant – Tenant alleging defects in property amounting to nuisance – Whether landlord “person responsible for nuisance” where offer of alternative accommodation unreasonably refused albeit before the date of complaint – Tenant’s claim refused – Appeal dismissed
The appellant was the tenant of 12 Ruskin Street, Kirkdale, Liverpool, which was let by the respondent landlord, Liverpool Housing Trust (1999) (the trust). On 27 April 1998 the appellant sent to the trust a notice of intention to bring proceedings, requesting the trust to abate a statutory nuisance affecting her property, detailed in a report prepared by an environmental officer. On 20 May 1998 the trust wrote to the appellant’s solicitor indicating that it had been ready to carry out work on the property for many months and would do so once the appellant had left the property. The trust claimed that it had offered her, on two previous occasions, suitable alternative accommodation, which had been unreasonably refused. On 21 May 1998 the appellant instituted proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, claiming that her property was in such a condition as to be prejudicial to health as defined under section 79(1) of the Act. The magistrate found against the appellant and held that, in any event, any nuisance had been caused by the appellant’s unreasonable refusal of offers of alternative accommodation to allow works to be carried out to the property. The appellant appealed by way of case stated, contending that the property was prejudicial to health and that no valid offer of alternative accommodation had been made since such an offer was required to fall between the date of the notice (27 April 1998), and the date of issue of the proceedings (21 May 1998), not prior to the date of the notice.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
1. There was no evidence that there was a statutory nuisance and, if there had been a statutory nuisance, the plaintiff had unreasonably refused alternative accommodation that had been offered by the trust and clearly was suitable. Under section 82(4)(a) of the Act a landlord could assert that he was not the person responsible for an alleged nuisance where a tenant had unreasonably refused an offer of alternative accommodation while repairs were done. It was common sense that section 82(4)(a) could be relied upon by a landlord even where the offer and refusal of accommodation had occurred before the date that the landlord was put on notice pursuant to section 82(6) and (7).
2. Housing associations could do without vexatious litigation such as the appellant’s appeal. The 1990 Act was to be used responsibly, not capriciously and irresponsibly as it had been by the bringing of the appeal.
Adam Fullwood (instructed by Higgins & Co, of Birkenhead) appeared for the appellant; Louis Browne (instructed by Brabner Holden Banks Wilson, of Liverpool) appeared for the respondent.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
