McDougall and another v Easington DC
McDougall and another v Easington DC
- 1989
- Estates Gazette (1989) 25 EG 104-111(4) .
CA 1 February 1989. This case concerned `repair` of a council house whose tenants are the plaintiffs (M). The tenancy agreement contained a tenant`s repairing covenant in respect of the interior but no covenant by the landlords. However under Housing Act 1961 s32 the landlords were obliged to maintain the exterior of the property. Since 1976 it had been obvious that the property, made of prefabricated concrete panels, was not water tight. Temporary repairs were done until a grant became available under statutory transfer of the properties from the Peterlee Development Corporation . The cost of work was £10,718 increasing the market value from £10,000 to £18,500 and prolonging the house`s life by 30%. The tenants were informed ofthe work by a circular document which implied the work was a fait accompli. Nothing was said about the state of decoration after the work was done. At a meeting a redecoration allowance of £50 was offered. M`s solicitors wrote to the council putting them on no
CA 1 February 1989. This case concerned `repair` of a council house whose tenants are the plaintiffs (M). The tenancy agreement contained a tenant`s repairing covenant in respect of the interior but no covenant by the landlords. However under Housing Act 1961 s32 the landlords were obliged to maintain the exterior of the property. Since 1976 it had been obvious that the property, made of prefabricated concrete panels, was not water tight. Temporary repairs were done until a grant became available under statutory transfer of the properties from the Peterlee Development Corporation . The cost of work was £10,718 increasing the market value from £10,000 to £18,500 and prolonging the house`s life by 30%. The tenants were informed ofthe work by a circular document which implied the work was a fait accompli. Nothing was said about the state of decoration after the work was done. At a meeting a redecoration allowance of £50 was offered. M`s solicitors wrote to the council putting them on no