Image from Google Jackets

Dinefwr BC v Jones

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 284(6354) 3 October 1987, 58-60(3)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 23 June 1987. Appeal by defendant tenant (J) from cc decision in relation to J`s counterclaim against the plaintiff landlords (D) in an action brought by D for possession , rent arrears and mesne profits . D`s claims were withdrawn, but J`s counterclaim, alleging breaches of covenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s11 to keep the premises in repair and proper working order, remained. At issue was whether or not D had received notice of the lack of repair in the absence of complaint by J. Initially an official of the environmental health departmernt, who was assessing the cleanliness of the premises, observed the disrepair during his inspection. He asked J to inform the architectural services department of the defects. In addition the district valuer visited the premises in connection with J`s right to buy the property. He also observed the defects , which were mentioned in his report to the chief executive. Cc held that neither knowledge of the defects obtained by the env
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS38298 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 9851-1001

CA 23 June 1987. Appeal by defendant tenant (J) from cc decision in relation to J`s counterclaim against the plaintiff landlords (D) in an action brought by D for possession , rent arrears and mesne profits . D`s claims were withdrawn, but J`s counterclaim, alleging breaches of covenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s11 to keep the premises in repair and proper working order, remained. At issue was whether or not D had received notice of the lack of repair in the absence of complaint by J. Initially an official of the environmental health departmernt, who was assessing the cleanliness of the premises, observed the disrepair during his inspection. He asked J to inform the architectural services department of the defects. In addition the district valuer visited the premises in connection with J`s right to buy the property. He also observed the defects , which were mentioned in his report to the chief executive. Cc held that neither knowledge of the defects obtained by the env