What begins as a complaint about damp can sometimes become something more – a legal question about what makes a home truly fit to live in. In Mason v Bristol City Council, the court was asked to consider not only disrepair, but whether the property met the legal standard of “fitness for human habitation” under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

The tenant’s claim, brought under sections 9A and 11, focused on longstanding damp and delays – particularly affecting her daughter’s bedroom. Represented by Ethan Riley of Liverpool Civil Law, whilst the claimant did not ultimately succeed on the section 9A claim, she was awarded general damages under section 11 for the landlord’s failure to act within a reasonable time.

Importantly, the judgment reaffirmed how the courts should apply the ‘fitness’ test for the purposes of section 9A LTA 1985; adopting the test in Rendlesham Estates v Barr [2014] EWHC 3968 which is as follows:

“In my judgment, for a dwelling to be fit for habitation within the meaning of the Act, it must, on completion (without any remedial works being carried out):

(a) be capable of occupation for a reasonable time without risk to the health or safety of the occupants: where a dwelling is or is part of a newly constructed building, what is a reasonable time will be a question of fact (it may or may not be as long as the design life of the building); and

(b) be capable of occupation for a reasonable time without undue inconvenience or discomfort to the occupants.”

This follows the approach taken in Jillians v Red Kite Community Housing (County Court at Oxford, 2024), where the court reached a different conclusion and found the property to be unfit. That case – led by George Murray of Liverpool Civil Law – adds further weight to a growing line of authority interpreting section 9A consistently and with a tenant-focused lens.

For solicitors advising on housing disrepair, these cases offer valuable guidance. The threshold for proving ‘unfitness’ is perhaps not as high as once thought – these recent judgments provide a clear route for presenting well-evidenced claims focused on the lived experience of tenants.

At Liverpool Civil Law, we remain at the forefront of this developing area, representing clients in cases that help define what ‘fit for habitation’ should mean – in law and in life.