Jeffrey Shaw   89 #13 Posted November 19, 2014 Answer: a landowner may be liable for the tort nuisance that's caused on his/her land but then pans out to affect another's. This is exemplified by the 1868 case of Rylands v. Fletcher, where it was reservoir water that spilled-out. Other cases followed its precedent. See http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/1868/1.html&query=title+%28+Rylands+%29+and+title+%28+v.+%29+and+title+%28+Fletcher+%29&method=boolean Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
wadsleyblade   10 #14 Posted November 26, 2014 Wouldnt have thought the Rylands v Fletcher ruling could be used here Jeffery. Wouldnt there have to have been an 'escape'?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
aliceBB   10 #15 Posted November 27, 2014 Answer: a landowner may be liable for the tort nuisance that's caused on his/her land but then pans out to affect another's. This is exemplified by the 1868 case of Rylands v. Fletcher, where it was reservoir water that spilled-out. Other cases followed its precedent. See http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/1868/1.html&query=title+%28+Rylands+%29+and+title+%28+v.+%29+and+title+%28+Fletcher+%29&method=boolean  This is a completely different scenario from that in which someone is disturbed by noisy/antisocial neighbours who just happen to be tenants (rather than owner occupiers).  If the chimney of a rental property is blown down and damages a neighbour's property, the LL (or his insurer) is usually liable for remedying the damage. The same applies to anything else which falls under the LL's statutory repairing obligations (although Ts may be liable for cost if damage was caused by their action or failure to act, e.g. if they leave the house unoccupied with no heating on and the pipes freeze and burst). But if his tenants have wild karaoke parties until 3 a.m., it is up to the aggrieved neighbours to take action (as I have described above), not the LL. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   89 #16 Posted December 1, 2014 This is a completely different scenario from that in which someone is disturbed by noisy/antisocial neighbours who just happen to be tenants (rather than owner occupiers).  If the chimney of a rental property is blown down and damages a neighbour's property, the LL (or his insurer) is usually liable for remedying the damage. The same applies to anything else which falls under the LL's statutory repairing obligations (although Ts may be liable for cost if damage was caused by their action or failure to act, e.g. if they leave the house unoccupied with no heating on and the pipes freeze and burst). But if his tenants have wild karaoke parties until 3 a.m., it is up to the aggrieved neighbours to take action (as I have described above), not the LL. Yes, except if: a. L has conduced to the nuisance (or at least failed to take action to stop it); or b. there are covenants by each owner in favour of the others [as you'd expect in leases of flats] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
aliceBB Â Â 10 #17 Posted December 1, 2014 Yes, except if: a. L has conduced to the nuisance (or at least failed to take action to stop it); Are you talking about leases of flats here, or do you mean this would apply (for example) to troublesome tenants in a non-leasehold property (e.g. a house owned by a LL and rented to Ts)? If so, perhaps you could explain how a LL is supposed to 'take action to stop it' (ie nusiance)? By what law is he required to do so? And if this is the case (i.e. that the LL must intervene to stop the nuisance), why have you agreed with my statement that it is not the LL's responsibility (except in a licensable HMO) to control the behaviour of his tenants? Â or b. there are covenants by each owner in favour of the others [as you'd expect in leases of flats] I expect you are correct about that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   89 #18 Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) Are you talking about leases of flats here, or do you mean this would apply (for example) to troublesome tenants in a non-leasehold property (e.g. a house owned by a LL and rented to Ts)? If so, perhaps you could explain how a LL is supposed to 'take action to stop it' (ie nusiance)? By what law is he required to do so? A good point, and thank you for your helpful contributuons to this thread.  It's not "a law" but a consequence of what's called an 'enforcement covenant'.  Assume flat 1 owned by T1 and flat 2 by T2 [each with leasehold ownership], and the freehold reversion owned by L. There are two contracts (= the leases), one between L and T1 and the other between L and T2. There's no contract between T1 and T2, however.  T1 creates a nuisance in breach of a usual covenant- e.g. noise, use of residence for business, etc.  T2 cannot enforce T1's lease. So T2 complains to L. L can enforce it- but T2 cannot make L enforce it unless (in T2's lease) L has covenanted along the lines of: L covenants with T2 to take enforcement action against the leaseholder of the other flat for any breach of covenant of which T2 notifies L but only at the request and cost of T2". Edited December 1, 2014 by Jeffrey Shaw Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
aliceBB Â Â 10 #19 Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) Â It's not "a law" but a consequence of what's called an 'enforcement covenant'. Â Assume flat 1 owned by T1 and flat 2 by T2 [each with leasehold ownership], and the freehold reversion owned by L. There are two contracts (= the leases), one between L and T1 and the other between L and T2. There's no contract between T1 and T2, however. Â T1 creates a nuisance in breach of a usual covenant- e.g. noise, use of residence for business, etc. Â T2 cannot enforce T1's lease. So T2 complains to L. L can enforce it- but T2 cannot make L enforce it unless (in T2's lease) L has covenanted along the lines of: L covenants with T2 to take enforcement action against the leaseholder of the other flat for any breach of covenant of which T2 notifies L but only at the request and cost of T2". I do not dispute any of the above; my point is that I cannot think it applies in a situation where rent-paying Ts of non-leasehold property (such as a terraced, detached or semi detached house or bungalow, as opposed to a flat), are causing a nuisance/annoyance to their neighbours. Â I think that in that situation, all that the inconvenienced neighbour can do is keep a log of the nuisance and report it to the Noise Abatement Officer at the local council. There is no obligation on the LL to sort the problem out (although it might be in his interests to do so). Edited December 2, 2014 by aliceBB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   89 #20 Posted December 4, 2014 Yes, that sounds good advice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
aliceBB Â Â 10 #21 Posted December 5, 2014 Good. I'm glad you agree about that. Â (Sadly, the OP has long since disappeared). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...