2020-02-17
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 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

29 May 2020 Return to the workplace risk assessments

Following recent Government announcements, the time has come to consider a phased return to places of work. Obviously, given the unprecedented nature of Covid-19, such a process will be riddled with confusion for both employers and employees – how will the return to work operate?

Read article
28 May 2020 Guide to restrictive covenants

Employment and consultancy contracts often contain clauses restricting an individual’s working activity when they leave a business. These clauses, ‘post termination restrictive covenants’, typically restrict the ex-staff member’s ability to work in competing businesses, to deal with clients, to try to win business from them, or to poach other staff members.

Read article
28 May 2020 Could COVID 19 bring the end of high rise and cramped living?

On 14 June it will be three years since the Grenfell tower tragedy, global warming is adversely affecting the environment causing floods and other natural disasters, and the country is on lockdown because of coronavirus.

Read article
Contact
How can we help?
01926 732512
CALL BACK