Over Taylor Biggs

The Act applies to dwellings enabling a claim to be brought where a property is not fit for human habitation.  Although the Act is framed to apply to commercial property as well, the relevant provisions are yet to be brought into force.  By relying on the Act the house owners could pursue a claim against the designing engineers, with whom they had no direct contractual arrangement.

The Engineer designer denied that it had acted improperly and claimed that if the Contractor had followed its design the foundations would have been sufficient.

Both the Engineer and the Contractor denied that the house was unfit for human habitation because the owners were still living there and it continued to be used for its intended function.

There was also an argument over the cost of remedial works.  The Engineer contended that localised repair would be adequate, taking six months but which would not offer a permanent solution.  The owners, not surprisingly, were looking for underpinning to provide a permanent solution, even if it would take 12 months and prove more expensive.

The Court decided that the defects were severe, the foundations were inadequate and, so far as the Act was concerned, the house was not fit for habitation.  Whilst minor defects could be ignored, the house was still unsuitable for its intended purpose even if the defects could not be regarded as dangerous.

It also determined that both the Contractor and the Engineer were liable, as both had failed to act professionally or in a good and workmanlike manner. The foundations were inadequate from both a design and workmanship perspective.  It was also reasonable for underpinning to be awarded, along with an agreed payment of damages of £4,500.

Reliance on the Act is relatively rare and this decision does not raise new matters of law but provides a useful review of the fitness for human habitation arguments.  The Court also ruled on damages, deciding that it was reasonable to expect the defects to be resolved once and for all, even though an alternative and less expensive solution had been put forward.

Bole v Huntsbuild Limited and Movey 2009 Technology & Constructive Court