King v South Northamptonshire DC
King v South Northamptonshire DC
- 1992
- Estates Gazette (1992) 06 EG 152-156(3) .
CA 12 November 1991. The respondent, K had been the weekly tenant of a house since 1967 owned by the appellant council, S. As is commonplace with council lettings there was no written tenancy agreement but both parties had assumed that S`s standard conditions of tenancy applied. Those conditions do not contain a repairing covenant by the tenant, they do covenant to provide access to the landlord for purposes of repair. The house has a path running across the rear, part of which belonged to the neighbour who had purchased their property. K claimed a right of way over the path which had fallen into a bad state of repair and which she had to use increasingly, being confined to a wheelchair. K claimed a mandatory injunction and damages for pain, suffering, inconvenience and distress. The judge found K did have a right of way based on Law of Property Act 1925 s62. Also there was an implied term that S should repair the path. S`s appeal that they were not responsible for repair of the path
COUNCIL TENANCIES
FOOTPATHS
IMPLIED TERMS
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S11
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S62
REPAIRS
RIGHTS OF WAY
CA 12 November 1991. The respondent, K had been the weekly tenant of a house since 1967 owned by the appellant council, S. As is commonplace with council lettings there was no written tenancy agreement but both parties had assumed that S`s standard conditions of tenancy applied. Those conditions do not contain a repairing covenant by the tenant, they do covenant to provide access to the landlord for purposes of repair. The house has a path running across the rear, part of which belonged to the neighbour who had purchased their property. K claimed a right of way over the path which had fallen into a bad state of repair and which she had to use increasingly, being confined to a wheelchair. K claimed a mandatory injunction and damages for pain, suffering, inconvenience and distress. The judge found K did have a right of way based on Law of Property Act 1925 s62. Also there was an implied term that S should repair the path. S`s appeal that they were not responsible for repair of the path
COUNCIL TENANCIES
FOOTPATHS
IMPLIED TERMS
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S11
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S62
REPAIRS
RIGHTS OF WAY