Coastal Housing Group Limited v Mitchell and Ors
Language: English Publication details: [2024] EWHC 2831 (Ch) Chancery Division 8 November 2024Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: A test case before Mr Justice Griffiths and Judge Jarman KC under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, the High Court held that contract-holders (known as tenants before the RHW Act) under converted occupation contracts were not liable to pay rent until their landlords had provided them with electrical condition reports; until then, the dwellings were treated as being unfit for human habitation. In each of the test cases, the claimant landlords commissioned an ECR but failed to provide the contract-holders with a copy for several months. Various details such as whether contract-holders had the right to claim back paid rent (none had in fact withheld rent) was not a matter explored by this case. Looked at the landlords claim there was a distinction between “actual” breach (where as a matter of fact the dwelling is unfit for human habitation because of some electrical fault) and “deemed” breach (where the property is fit for human habitation because there are no electrical faults but the administrative failure to provide the certificate means the dwelling is “deemed” to be unfit).| Item type | Current library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE JUDGMENT (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Available |
A test case before Mr Justice Griffiths and Judge Jarman KC under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, the High Court held that contract-holders (known as tenants before the RHW Act) under converted occupation contracts were not liable to pay rent until their landlords had provided them with electrical condition reports; until then, the dwellings were treated as being unfit for human habitation. In each of the test cases, the claimant landlords commissioned an ECR but failed to provide the contract-holders with a copy for several months. Various details such as whether contract-holders had the right to claim back paid rent (none had in fact withheld rent) was not a matter explored by this case.
Looked at the landlords claim there was a distinction between “actual” breach (where as a matter of fact the dwelling is unfit for human habitation because of some electrical fault) and “deemed” breach (where the property is fit for human habitation because there are no electrical faults but the administrative failure to provide the certificate means the dwelling is “deemed” to be unfit).