Image from Google Jackets

Stent v Monmouth DC

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 282(6333) 9 May 1987, 705-715(6)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 21 January 1987. An appeal by the local authority, the landlords, from a county court decision favouring the tenant, holding the authority liable for a breach of covenant to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of a dwelling house . Briefly, the front-door was the source of the dispute; it was on an exposed site and suffered from the elements to such an extent that the tenant`s carpets were damaged. This door had been a source of inconvenience for over 30 years; a range of remedial work took place, including a new door in 1979. The problem was not finally resolved until 1983, when an aluminium door was fitted. In an action in the county court, the tenant was awarded damages. The landlords appealed, submitting that the water was not due to a condition calling for repair under the covenant, but a design defect; a duty to rectify the defect could only arise if there was an existing want of repair. Held that the damage suffered by the tenant was within the ambit of the repai
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS37713 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 6372-1001

CA 21 January 1987. An appeal by the local authority, the landlords, from a county court decision favouring the tenant, holding the authority liable for a breach of covenant to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of a dwelling house . Briefly, the front-door was the source of the dispute; it was on an exposed site and suffered from the elements to such an extent that the tenant`s carpets were damaged. This door had been a source of inconvenience for over 30 years; a range of remedial work took place, including a new door in 1979. The problem was not finally resolved until 1983, when an aluminium door was fitted. In an action in the county court, the tenant was awarded damages. The landlords appealed, submitting that the water was not due to a condition calling for repair under the covenant, but a design defect; a duty to rectify the defect could only arise if there was an existing want of repair. Held that the damage suffered by the tenant was within the ambit of the repai