[2003] EWCA Civ 408, 2 April 2003. Appellants Alderson (A) agreed to buy two basement flats in a converted property in May 1994. Eleven months later, prior to moving in they found black mould and fungus on walls of both flats. Works ordered by the respondent (B) did not stop the basement flooding four months later. A instructed a chartered surveyor who reported the flats had been constructed in breach of the Defective Premises Act 1972. He advised in November 1995 that substantial alterations be made and compensation given for spoilt purchases, disturbance and inconvenience. B did not undertake further remedial works and it was not until January 2001, when A commenced legal proceedings, that B claimed the limitation period had expired in May 2000. Judge agreed and A's claim dismissed. In April 2003 CA reconsidered this verdict, A claimed that the period did not begin at commencement of building works, but at the time B carried out the first lot of remedial works in May 1995. B argued the remedial works had not caused the flooding damage. It was held that the original damp situation had caused the problem and that B should have provided a habitable dwelling. Appeal "allowed".