Rank: Forum user 
|
If a block of flats has a path leading up to the front door (or anywhere on the external grounds), with paving stones that are uneven, and a trip hazard, does the landlord have a responsibility to repair them? Would a sign suffice. Or does he not have to do anything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Depends on how maintenance is arranged i.e. sole landlord or if the Tennant's are under management fees for repairs.
Signage could be argued inadequate particularly in a public place - not everyone uses written English as a means to communicate - blind, non-uk, dyslexic,
|
 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
Mosh on 24/12/2019(UTC), Mosh on 24/12/2019(UTC)
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Depends on how maintenance is arranged i.e. sole landlord or if the Tennant's are under management fees for repairs.
Signage could be argued inadequate particularly in a public place - not everyone uses written English as a means to communicate - blind, non-uk, dyslexic,
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
Mosh on 24/12/2019(UTC), Mosh on 24/12/2019(UTC)
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
From a legal perspective the landlord would have a duty pursuant to the Occupier's Liabilty Act, which is a civil law duty to ensure the property is safe for those entering and using the property. Whether this duty would extend to uneven paving stones I could not say for sure.
|
1 user thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
There was a case discussed in the Supreme Court in 2016 - Edwards v Kumarasamy, where a tenant sued for getting injured after tripping whilst taking out his rubbish. He lost the case, and the Landlord was not held liable. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the case, but I think the landlord didn't own the freehold. The question is then, does the freeholder have a legal obligation to ensure there are no trip hazards on the property grounds, outside of the actual building?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Mosh, it will depend on a number of variables including how much control the "landlord" has over the path, how uneven the paving slabs are and how obvious the hazard is to those to those to whom the duty holder (or holders) as occupier has duties.
The case you refer to might have been determined on the basis of degree of control.
Lots of cases and plenty of case law - most cases don't get to the stage where they might set a precedent for future actions.
Highways authorities typically adopt an "intervention" standard at which a trip is of sufficient size before they take remedial action. Otherwise they would have to send out a team every time someone complains about a 6mm tripping hazard on a pavement. If they reacted to every such complaint, the cost of maintaining the streets would escalate dramatically and the risk to those carrying out repairs might sometimes outweigh the reduction in public risk.
Each case would be determined on its merits and that would include consideration of the population at risk, e.g. how likely are they to be sight or mobility impaired etc etc.
|
1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I believe LAs use a tripping benchmark of 20mm for paving stones, possibly as a result of a civil law claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As people have said this is one of those how long is a piece of string answers: it all depends? The occupier (ie the person responsible for managing the premises who might be the landlord or their agent or someone else) has a duty to take reasonable care of the property and to take measures that ensure that ASFARP there are no trip hazards. This is balanced by the expectation that the tenant and visitors will take reasonable care of themselves. So this depends on things like how uneven the paving is, how well lit the area is, to where the trip hazard actually, is so trip hazard just inside the property where you might expect the path to be reasonably flat is more likely to cause issues that one in a hardly used corner. In practical terms there is also whether this issue has arisen as a result of a claim following an actual trip and fall, where you are trying to assess the liability after something has actually happened or whether you are asking the landlord to fix something that has the potential to cause an accident.
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
In a former existance I used to do "Landlord's Surveys" looking at potential causes of accidents for which tenants might claim. The key is finding out the extent of responsibility for the area surrounding the building. For most blocks of flats this area can be a lot smaller than you might think with the local authority taking over responsibility a lot nearer to the building than you might suppose. If you tell the landlord or LA about the problem then you would be "putting them on notice" this doesn't mean that they will undertake repairs (or indeed have any more responsibility to fix the issue) but if someone did have a fall they would be in a better position to claim damages. Where LAs are concerned all they need is to have a system in place to check areas for which they are responsible, they do not need to fix things and generally won't unless they receive multiple complaints or someone sues them. LAs and landlords tread a fine spending line between maintenance costs and the potential costs of being sued, one being a here and now measurable cost and the other a putative potential cost that might never happen. I leave you to draw your own conclusion as to whether the pavement is likely to be repairs or not!
|
1 user thanked Hsquared14 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.