000			01690cab a2200265 4500
001			ABS45940
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u55991
041			_aeng
245			_aKing v South Northamptonshire DC
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1992) 06 EG 152-156(3)
520			_aCA 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
650			_aCOUNCIL TENANCIES
650			_aFOOTPATHS
650			_aIMPLIED TERMS
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S11
650			_aLAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S62
650			_aREPAIRS
650			_aRIGHTS OF WAY
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c34199 _d34199