Leasehold Covenants Flashcards
Implied covenants
By the tenants(1) to pay rates and taxes, (2) to use the property in a tenant-like manner, (3) not to commit waste (4) to allow the landlord to enter and view
By the landlord (1)Quiet enjoyment (2) not to derogate from grant (3) Repair: fit for human habitation, defecive premises Act 1972 repair, s.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Warren v Keen (1954)
To use the property in tenan-like manner such as to loo after the property in a general fashion, but one ehich does no extend to repaiir of the property. It might include tings suh as turning off the water if the tenant is going away, cleaning the chimneys and the windows mending the electric light when it fuses and unblockking the sink when iit is blocked by his waste.
Yellowly v Gower (1855)
If there is nothing in the lease o the contrary all tenans are liable for voluntary waste. However, the extent of liabilit for pernissive waste depends on the type of lease. A tenant of a fixterm lease will always be resposible for the permissive waste, ules the lease states otherwise, ut the liability of a periodic tenant will depend on the length of the periodic term. Generally speaking, the shorter the term is the less onerous the tenant’s respnsibilty.
Mint v Good [1951] 1 KB 517
Where the landlord has either an implied or express obigation to repair, there is an implied obgligayion on te tenant to allow the access to the premises to inspect tem and carry out the necessaary repair.
Browne v Flower [1911] 1 Ch 219
Facts: the landlord built an external staircase outside the tenant’s premises which affected the tenan’s privacy. Held: There was no breach of the tenant in her ordinary use of the property.
Principle: A mere inconvinience to the tenan will not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment
What constitutes breachh of quiet enjoyment
Lavender v Bets [1942] 2 All ER 72 Removing doors and windows.
Hindering the tenant’s access Owen v Gadd [1956] 2 QB 99
Perera v Vandiyar [1953] 1 WLR 672 Disconnecting the gas and electricity.
Kenny v Kreen [1963] 1 QB 499 Persistenty immidating the tenant.
Harmer v Jumbil (Nigeria) Tin Areas Ltd [1921] 1 Ch 200
Facts: A landlord let a warehouse to a tenant to store explosives, for which he required a licence. One of the tern of te licence was that tere were to e no other buildings within a certain radius of the storage unt. The effect of this as hat the landlord was prevente under the immplied covenant of non-derogation from grant, from uilding within that radius.
Principle: The landlord, having let the premises for a partiullar purpose cannot then do anything to frustrate hat purpose.
Smith v Marrable (1843) 11 M&W 5
Facts: A landlord had let a property to a tenant wih turned out to be infested with the bugs. The propery was found not to be for for human habitation and tenant was held by the court to be entitled to quuit the premises immediately without giving notice under the lease.
Principle: A furnished letting of residental property must e ft for human habitation when let.
Section 4 Defective Premiss Act 1972
If the landlord has a right to enter leased prenises to carry out repaires or maintainance, ten a statutory duty will be implied for the landlord to keep “all persons who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects in the premises” reasonably safe from injury or damage on account of defects of any pweson either visiting or uccupyng the premises
McNerny v Lambeth LBC [1989] 1 EGLR 81
There will be no liability if the damage or lack of repar was outside the scope of the landlord’s duties
Clarke v Taff Ely orough Council (1980) 10 HLR 44
Facts: A women fell from a table whist redecorating because the table leg wen theough a rotten floorboad
Held: The landlord was liable. The age and cconstruction of the house was such that it had been reasonably foreseeable that the floors in the building might rot due to dampness. He should therefore have carried out regular inspections of the property and undertaken a structureed programme of mainttainance in respect of it.
Principle: Where the landlord is responsible for repair, the landlord is also responsible to keep tenants and their visitors reasonably safe from injury or damage.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Landlord is responsible for structue and exterior; drains and gtters; sanitation; heatiing; water, gas, and electicity.
Quick v Taff-Ely BC [1986] QB 809
Facts: The original house meant that the house suffered from condensation. Held: The council was not liable under 1985 Act. There were no actual disrepair. The building: rather, the damage was the produuct of a simple design defect in the house.
Principle: Keeping te premises in repair does not exend to the rectification of an inherent defect in the property’s design.
Wyycombe HA v Barnett (1982) 47 P&PC 394
Facts: A failure on the part of the landlord had o la the water pipes was not considered by the court to be a breach of his statutory duty to repair under the Act. If the water pipe had burst due to being rusted away, this would have fallen within the remit if te landlord’a repairing obgliations, but for it to burst through freezing could not in all reasonableness be said to constitute a lack of repair.
Principle: “Proper working order” means in proper working condition and does not extend to a fuse bowing or pipes freezing.
Assign or sublet
Abbsolute: Thereis an absolute bar on assignment or subletting o the tenant is not allowed to suble at all
Qualified The tenantt must obtain the landlord’s consent to any proceed asignmen or subletting
Fully qualified: The tenant must otain the landlord’s consent but thst onsent must not be reasonably withheld.
