Defective Premises Act - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 06:54, 8 October 2020

2020-10-08T06:54:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:54, 8 October 2020
Line 43:		Line 43:
	* [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35 The Defective Premises Act].		* [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35 The Defective Premises Act].

−	[[Category:~~Other_legislation~~]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]	+	[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

Editor at 11:50, 4 October 2018

2018-10-04T11:50:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:50, 4 October 2018
Line 18:		Line 18:
	The Act prohibits any attempt to exclude its operation by section 6(3), which makes void any term in a contract that purports to exclude or restrict the operation of the Act.		The Act prohibits any attempt to exclude its operation by section 6(3), which makes void any term in a contract that purports to exclude or restrict the operation of the Act.

−	For defendants to be caught by the DPA it must be proven that they developed the dwelling in the course of a business. In the ~~2013~~ case of [[Zennstrom_~~&_Anor_v_Fagot_&_Ors~~\|Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors]], circumstances proved the defendants were not property developers; they were just building their dream home. Compelling evidence that supported this were the bespoke features installed, such as an entertainment system and art work, together with evidence from friends, neighbours and their architect that the house was to be their dream home. Also, significantly, the property did not benefit from an NHBC certificate which it might have, had it been developed by a property developer.	+	For defendants to be caught by the DPA it must be proven that they developed the dwelling in the course of a business.
		+
		+	In the case of [[Zennstrom_%26_Anor_v_Fagot_%26_Ors\|Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors]] (2013), circumstances proved the defendants were not property developers; they were just building their dream home. Compelling evidence that supported this were the bespoke features installed, such as an entertainment system and art work, together with evidence from friends, neighbours and their architect that the house was to be their dream home. Also, significantly, the property did not benefit from an NHBC certificate which it might have, had it been developed by a property developer.

	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =		= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =
Line 31:		Line 33:
	* Housing defects.		* Housing defects.
	* Housing Defects Act 1984.		* Housing Defects Act 1984.
		+	* Premises.
	* Reasonable skill and care.		* Reasonable skill and care.
	* Subcontractor		* Subcontractor
	* The supply of goods and services act.		* The supply of goods and services act.
−	* [[Zennstrom_~~&_Anor_v_Fagot_&_Ors~~\|Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors.]]	+	* [[Zennstrom_%26_Anor_v_Fagot_%26_Ors\|Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors.]]

	=== External references ===		=== External references ===
Line 40:		Line 43:
	* [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35 The Defective Premises Act].		* [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35 The Defective Premises Act].

−	[[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]	+	[[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

Editor at 11:16, 4 October 2018

2018-10-04T11:16:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:16, 4 October 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	It is easy to forget that other duties may govern the work of contractors and consultants apart from those set out in their written contracts.		It is easy to forget that other duties may govern the work of contractors and consultants apart from those set out in their written contracts.

−	Where a contractor is involved in the construction of a residential dwelling there is an implied term, implied by law, that the contractor will carry out the work in a good and workmanlike manner, that they will supply good and proper materials and that the dwelling will be reasonably fit for human habitation. This common law obligation has now been supplemented by a statutory code set out in the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35 Defective Premises Act 1972] (~~“DPA”~~) which came into force on 1 January 1974.	+	Where a contractor is involved in the construction of a residential dwelling there is an implied term, implied by law, that the contractor will carry out the work in a good and workmanlike manner, that they will supply good and proper materials and that the dwelling will be reasonably fit for human habitation. This common law obligation has now been supplemented by a statutory code set out in the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35 Defective Premises Act 1972] (DPA) which came into force on 1 January 1974.

	The Act provides that a person taking on work for, or in connection with, the provision of a dwelling owes a duty to the person acquiring the dwelling and subsequent purchasers to see that the work which they take on is done in a workmanlike or professional manner, with proper materials so that it will be fit for habitation when completed.		The Act provides that a person taking on work for, or in connection with, the provision of a dwelling owes a duty to the person acquiring the dwelling and subsequent purchasers to see that the work which they take on is done in a workmanlike or professional manner, with proper materials so that it will be fit for habitation when completed.
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Section 1(1) of the Act provides:		Section 1(1) of the Act provides:

−	'A person taking on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling (whether the dwelling is provided by the erection or by the conversion or enlargement of the building) owes a duty,	+	'A person taking on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling (whether the dwelling is provided by the erection or by the conversion or enlargement of the building) owes a duty:

−	* A) if the dwelling is provided to the order of any person, to that person; and	+	* a) If the dwelling is provided to the order of any person, to that person; and
−	* B) ~~without~~ prejudice to paragraph A above to every person who acquires an interest (whether legal or equitable) in the dwelling; to see that the work which he takes on is done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner with proper materials and so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed’	+	* b) Without prejudice to paragraph A above to every person who acquires an interest (whether legal or equitable) in the dwelling; to see that the work which he takes on is done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner with proper materials and so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed’

	The DPA applies to the provision of new dwellings, extensions or conversions and the defects must be significant to render the dwelling unfit for habitation. This could clearly affect contractors and consultants when constructing/designing residential properties. Whilst contractors and consultants may in their written contracts seek to limit or exclude liability for losses, they cannot exclude or limit liability under the DPA to the current or subsequent owners.		The DPA applies to the provision of new dwellings, extensions or conversions and the defects must be significant to render the dwelling unfit for habitation. This could clearly affect contractors and consultants when constructing/designing residential properties. Whilst contractors and consultants may in their written contracts seek to limit or exclude liability for losses, they cannot exclude or limit liability under the DPA to the current or subsequent owners.
Line 18:		Line 18:
	The Act prohibits any attempt to exclude its operation by section 6(3), which makes void any term in a contract that purports to exclude or restrict the operation of the Act.		The Act prohibits any attempt to exclude its operation by section 6(3), which makes void any term in a contract that purports to exclude or restrict the operation of the Act.

−	For defendants to be caught by the DPA it must be proven that they developed the dwelling in the course of a business. In the 2013 case of [~~https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/~~Zennstrom_~~%26_Anor_v_Fagot_%26_Ors~~ Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors], circumstances proved the defendants were not property developers; they were just building their dream home. Compelling evidence that supported this were the bespoke features installed, such as an entertainment system and art work, together with evidence from friends, neighbours and their architect that the house was to be their dream home. Also, significantly, the property did not benefit from an NHBC certificate which it might have, had it been developed by a property developer.	+	For defendants to be caught by the DPA it must be proven that they developed the dwelling in the course of a business. In the 2013 case of [[Zennstrom_&_Anor_v_Fagot_&_Ors\|Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors]], circumstances proved the defendants were not property developers; they were just building their dream home. Compelling evidence that supported this were the bespoke features installed, such as an entertainment system and art work, together with evidence from friends, neighbours and their architect that the house was to be their dream home. Also, significantly, the property did not benefit from an NHBC certificate which it might have, had it been developed by a property developer.

−	~~= Find out more =~~	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =
−		+
−	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===	+

	* Collateral warranty.		* Collateral warranty.
Line 36:		Line 34:
	* Subcontractor		* Subcontractor
	* The supply of goods and services act.		* The supply of goods and services act.
−	* [~~https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/~~Zennstrom_~~%26_Anor_v_Fagot_%26_Ors~~ Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors].	+	* [[Zennstrom_&_Anor_v_Fagot_&_Ors\|Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors.]]

	=== External references ===		=== External references ===

Editor at 11:30, 20 July 2017

2017-07-20T11:30:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:30, 20 July 2017
Line 27:		Line 27:
	* Construction contract.		* Construction contract.
	* Contractor.		* Contractor.
−	* Defective Premises - Liability and Measure of Damages	+	* Defective Premises - Liability and Measure of Damages.
		+	* Defective premises and freeholder liabilities.
	* Defects.		* Defects.
	* Fitness for purpose.		* Fitness for purpose.

Designing Buildings at 08:36, 15 May 2017

2017-05-15T08:36:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:36, 15 May 2017
Line 18:		Line 18:
	The Act prohibits any attempt to exclude its operation by section 6(3), which makes void any term in a contract that purports to exclude or restrict the operation of the Act.		The Act prohibits any attempt to exclude its operation by section 6(3), which makes void any term in a contract that purports to exclude or restrict the operation of the Act.

−	For defendants to be caught by the DPA it must be proven that they developed the dwelling in the course of a business. In the 2013 case of Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors, circumstances proved the defendants were not property developers; they were just building their dream home. Compelling evidence that supported this were the bespoke features installed, such as an entertainment system and art work, together with evidence from friends, neighbours and their architect that the house was to be their dream home. Also, significantly, the property did not benefit from an NHBC certificate which it might have, had it been developed by a property developer.	+	For defendants to be caught by the DPA it must be proven that they developed the dwelling in the course of a business. In the 2013 case of [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Zennstrom_%26_Anor_v_Fagot_%26_Ors Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors], circumstances proved the defendants were not property developers; they were just building their dream home. Compelling evidence that supported this were the bespoke features installed, such as an entertainment system and art work, together with evidence from friends, neighbours and their architect that the house was to be their dream home. Also, significantly, the property did not benefit from an NHBC certificate which it might have, had it been developed by a property developer.

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =
Line 35:		Line 35:
	* Subcontractor		* Subcontractor
	* The supply of goods and services act.		* The supply of goods and services act.
−	* Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors	+	* [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Zennstrom_%26_Anor_v_Fagot_%26_Ors Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors].

	=== External references ===		=== External references ===

Designing Buildings at 08:59, 18 March 2017

2017-03-18T08:59:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:59, 18 March 2017
Line 31:		Line 31:
	* Fitness for purpose.		* Fitness for purpose.
	* Housing defects.		* Housing defects.
		+	* Housing Defects Act 1984.
	* Reasonable skill and care.		* Reasonable skill and care.
	* Subcontractor		* Subcontractor

Designing Buildings at 06:45, 1 October 2016

2016-10-01T06:45:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:45, 1 October 2016
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Where a contractor is involved in the construction of a residential dwelling there is an implied term, implied by law, that the contractor will carry out the work in a good and workmanlike manner, that they will supply good and proper materials and that the dwelling will be reasonably fit for human habitation. This common law obligation has now been supplemented by a statutory code set out in the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35 Defective Premises Act 1972] (“DPA”) which came into force on 1 January 1974.		Where a contractor is involved in the construction of a residential dwelling there is an implied term, implied by law, that the contractor will carry out the work in a good and workmanlike manner, that they will supply good and proper materials and that the dwelling will be reasonably fit for human habitation. This common law obligation has now been supplemented by a statutory code set out in the [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35 Defective Premises Act 1972] (“DPA”) which came into force on 1 January 1974.

−	The Act provides that a person taking on work for, or in connection with, the provision of a dwelling owes a duty to the person acquiring the dwelling and subsequent purchasers to see that the work which they take on is done in a workmanlike or professional manner, with proper materials ~~and~~ so that it will be fit for habitation when completed.	+	The Act provides that a person taking on work for, or in connection with, the provision of a dwelling owes a duty to the person acquiring the dwelling and subsequent purchasers to see that the work which they take on is done in a workmanlike or professional manner, with proper materials so that it will be fit for habitation when completed.

	Section 1(1) of the Act provides:		Section 1(1) of the Act provides:
Line 30:		Line 30:
	* Defects.		* Defects.
	* Fitness for purpose.		* Fitness for purpose.
		+	* Housing defects.
	* Reasonable skill and care.		* Reasonable skill and care.
	* Subcontractor		* Subcontractor

Designing Buildings at 06:42, 1 October 2016

2016-10-01T06:42:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:42, 1 October 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−
	It is easy to forget that other duties may govern the work of contractors and consultants apart from those set out in their written contracts.		It is easy to forget that other duties may govern the work of contractors and consultants apart from those set out in their written contracts.

Line 9:		Line 8:

	'A person taking on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling (whether the dwelling is provided by the erection or by the conversion or enlargement of the building) owes a duty,		'A person taking on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling (whether the dwelling is provided by the erection or by the conversion or enlargement of the building) owes a duty,
−	*A) if the dwelling is provided to the order of any person, to that person; and
−	*B) without prejudice to paragraph A above to every person who acquires an interest (whether legal or equitable) in the dwelling;

−	to see that the work which he takes on is done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner with proper materials and so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed’	+	* A) if the dwelling is provided to the order of any person, to that person; and
		+	* B) without prejudice to paragraph A above to every person who acquires an interest (whether legal or equitable) in the dwelling; to see that the work which he takes on is done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner with proper materials and so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed’

	The DPA applies to the provision of new dwellings, extensions or conversions and the defects must be significant to render the dwelling unfit for habitation. This could clearly affect contractors and consultants when constructing/designing residential properties. Whilst contractors and consultants may in their written contracts seek to limit or exclude liability for losses, they cannot exclude or limit liability under the DPA to the current or subsequent owners.		The DPA applies to the provision of new dwellings, extensions or conversions and the defects must be significant to render the dwelling unfit for habitation. This could clearly affect contractors and consultants when constructing/designing residential properties. Whilst contractors and consultants may in their written contracts seek to limit or exclude liability for losses, they cannot exclude or limit liability under the DPA to the current or subsequent owners.
Line 20:		Line 18:
	The Act prohibits any attempt to exclude its operation by section 6(3), which makes void any term in a contract that purports to exclude or restrict the operation of the Act.		The Act prohibits any attempt to exclude its operation by section 6(3), which makes void any term in a contract that purports to exclude or restrict the operation of the Act.

−	For defendants to be caught by the DPA it must be proven that they developed the dwelling in the course of a business. In the 2013 case of Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors, circumstances proved the defendants were not property developers; they were just building their dream home. Compelling evidence that supported this were the bespoke features installed, such as an entertainment system and art work, together with evidence from friends, neighbours and their architect that the house was to be their dream home. Also, significantly, the property did not benefit from an NHBC certificate which it might have, had it been developed by a property developer.	+	For defendants to be caught by the DPA it must be proven that they developed the dwelling in the course of a business. In the 2013 case of Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors, circumstances proved the defendants were not property developers; they were just building their dream home. Compelling evidence that supported this were the bespoke features installed, such as an entertainment system and art work, together with evidence from friends, neighbours and their architect that the house was to be their dream home. Also, significantly, the property did not benefit from an NHBC certificate which it might have, had it been developed by a property developer.

	= Find out more =		= Find out more =

	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===		=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===
−	*Collateral warranty.	+
−	*Construction contract.	+	* Collateral warranty.
−	*Contractor.	+	* Construction contract.
−	*Defective Premises - Liability and Measure of Damages	+	* Contractor.
−	*Defects.	+	* Defective Premises - Liability and Measure of Damages
−	*Fitness for purpose.	+	* Defects.
−	*Reasonable skill and care.	+	* Fitness for purpose.
−	*Subcontractor	+	* Reasonable skill and care.
−	*The supply of goods and services act.	+	* Subcontractor
−	*Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors	+	* The supply of goods and services act.
		+	* Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors

	=== External references ===		=== External references ===
−	*[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35 The Defective Premises Act].

−	[[Category:Other_legislation]]	+	* [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35 The Defective Premises Act].
−	[[Category:Property_law]]	+
−	[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]	+	[[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

Designing Buildings at 07:56, 9 October 2015

2015-10-09T07:56:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:56, 9 October 2015
Line 26:		Line 26:
	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===		=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===
	*Collateral warranty.		*Collateral warranty.
−	*~~Contract~~.	+	*Construction contract.
	*Contractor.		*Contractor.
	*Defective Premises - Liability and Measure of Damages		*Defective Premises - Liability and Measure of Damages
Line 39:		Line 39:
	*[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35 The Defective Premises Act].		*[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35 The Defective Premises Act].

−	~~[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]~~
	[[Category:Other_legislation]]		[[Category:Other_legislation]]
	[[Category:Property_law]]		[[Category:Property_law]]
−	[[Category:Contracts_~~/_payment_~~/_payment]]	+	[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

Designing Buildings: moved Defective premises act to Defective Premises Act

2013-08-22T06:46:23Z

moved Defective premises act to Defective Premises Act

← Older revision

Revision as of 06:46, 22 August 2013