Change Font Colours
Browsealoud
Who's Online
We have 162 guests and 11 members online| Appeal finds landlord not responsible for decoration under DDA |
 |
 |
 |
|
In the case of Michael Beedles v Guinness Northern Counties Limited, the Court of Appeal has upheld the original judgment that the landlord was not responsible to carry out repair and decoration work so that the disabled tenant could ‘enjoy’ his property. Mr Beedles, who has epilepsy and has regular grand mal seizures, has held an assured tenancy with Guinness Northern Counties Limited since 1995.
The tenancy agreement imposed a legal obligation on the tenant to keep the premises clean and in a good state of decoration. The landlord confirmed that, due to Mr Beedles’ disability, this obligation had been waived, but disputed responsibility for decorating the house. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (as amended 2005) stated that a controller of let premises should take reasonable steps to provide an auxiliary aid where that would enable a disabled person to ‘enjoy’ the premises. Mr Beedles argued that, as the property had become shabby, he was unable to ‘enjoy’ it.
However, Lord Justice Moses agreed with the original judgment, referencing Southwark London Borough Council v Tanner and others [2001] and finding that the words ‘enjoy’ and ‘enjoyment’ meant that he should be able to use the property in an ordinary lawful way, rather than deriving pleasure from it. He said that he was unable ‘to conclude that the absence of decoration undertaken by the landlord made it impossible or unreasonably difficult for Mr Beedles to "enjoy" the premises’ as defined within the case.
To view the case, visit the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website
|