Legal Articles

The Defective Premises Act 1972

Home / Knowledge base / The Defective Premises Act 1972

Posted by Stuart Thwaites on 12 November 2010

Stuart Thwaites - Building and Construction Lawyer
Stuart Thwaites Legal Director

The Defective Premises Act 1972 (“the Act”) imposes important obligations on both contractors and consultants involved in the design and construction of a dwelling. A dwelling can include a house or flat, and the Act applies both to new build dwellings as well as conversions or enlargements of dwellings, but does not apply to repairs. 

The Act imposes some onerous obligations. It provides that anyone with a legal or equitable interest in a dwelling can bring a claim against anyone involved in the design or construction of that dwelling where such works or services have resulted in the property not being fit for habitation. 

Normally professionals involved in a construction project only have to act with “reasonable skill and care”. However where the Act applies, the standard of performance is much higher and, in such circumstances, it is no defence that the professional acted with reasonable skill and care. 

Considering the significance of the obligations imposed by the Act, there has been surprisingly little case law on the subject. However the Court of Appeal has recently given an important decision which updates the law in this area. 

The case of Bole v Huntsbuild Ltd concerned homeowners who had brought a claim against their contractor relating to the construction of their new house. The contractor had engaged a structural engineer to advise on and design the foundations. After the house had been completed, extensive cracking appeared which was found to be due to defects in the design of the foundations. Unsurprisingly the homeowners began proceedings against the contractor and the engineer. 

The Court of Appeal laid down important guidelines for determining whether a dwelling is unfit for habitation. Important among these was that the duration of the required remedial works can be a relevant fact. In addition, it held that the courts are entitled to take account of the overall effect of the defects, rather than approaching the issue on a defect by defect analysis. The court upheld the decision that the property was unfit for habitation and that a piled raft solution was required.

About the author

Stuart Thwaites

Legal Director

Stuart specialises in construction and engineering work in relation to resolving disputes and in the drafting and negotiation of contractual documentation.

Stuart Thwaites

Stuart specialises in construction and engineering work in relation to resolving disputes and in the drafting and negotiation of contractual documentation.

Recent articles

07 August 2020 Protecting your chances of getting paid; retention of title clauses

A retention of title clause is a term within a contract for the sale of goods which states that the seller retains ownership of the goods until specified obligations are fulfilled by the buyer.

Read article
05 August 2020 Privilege: Protecting your business communications

Privilege can entitle a party involved in court proceedings to withhold a document from their opponent or to deny access to regulators and enforcement agencies.

Read article
30 July 2020 Rethinking the landlord / tenant relationship

We have been following the travails of the high street for over 12 months where changing shopping habits, business rates and rent increases have been contributing to a growing strain on many landlord / tenant relationships.

Read article
How can we help?
01926 732512