000			01896cam a2200229 4500
001			ABS67027
008			031001n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u123797
245			_aAvril Alderson and Hilda Alderson v Beetham Organisation Ltd
260			_c2003
490			_aBuilding Law Reports _v [2003] BLR 217-224(8)
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v [2003] 1 WLR 1686-1695(12)
520			_a[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".
590			_aABS
650			_aDEFECTIVE PREMISES ACT 1972
650			_aLIMITATION PERIODS
650			_aALDERSON AND ANOTHER V BEETHAM ORGANISATION LTD
650			_aANDREWS V SCHOOLING
650			_aHANCOCK V BRAZIER
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c73516 _d73516