Superior Landlord Liability, Damp and Mould Claims and Fitness for Human Habitation

Key Lessons from Kemp v Henderson Property Management Solutions Ltd

A County Court judgment handed down on 15^th July 2026 serves as a reminder of the risks landlords and property managers face when residential disrepair complaints are not addressed promptly. In Kemp v Henderson Property Management Solutions Ltd, the court considered extensive allegations of damp and mould, excess cold, defective windows, leaks and other hazards that affected a family throughout their tenancy.

The court found that the property was both in disrepair and unfit for human habitation, resulting in an award of more than £39,000 against the immediate landlord and over £10,000 against the superior landlord.

The facts

The tenant repeatedly reported damp and mould, defective windows, a leaking bathroom, a collapsed kitchen ceiling and problems with the heating system over a period of several years. Despite ongoing complaints and intervention by the local authority, repairs were not completed before the tenant and her family were ultimately rehoused.

The local authority served an Improvement Notice identifying Category 1 hazards relating to damp and mould, excess cold and fire safety, together with further hazards relating to sanitation and electrical safety. The court found that the landlords failed to adequately address those concerns and did not comply with the requirements of the notice.

Fitness for Human Habitation and Damp and Mould

One of the most notable aspects of the decision is the court’s approach to fitness for human habitation.

Despite the absence of expert surveyor evidence, the judge was satisfied that the property was unfit for human habitation due to the severity of the damp and mould, excess cold and other hazards. The court relied heavily on contemporaneous photographs, videos, tenant complaints and the local authority’s findings.

The judgment demonstrates that landlords should not assume that a claim will fail simply because a tenant has not obtained expert evidence, particularly where there is strong documentary evidence and local authority involvement.

Superior landlord liability under the Defective Premises Act 1972

The most legally significant aspect of the case is the court’s detailed analysis of section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.

The court held that a superior landlord may be liable where it knew, or ought reasonably to have known, about relevant defects and failed to take reasonable steps to protect occupiers from the risks those defects created. The judge found that once the local authority became involved, the superior landlord should have acted more proactively to investigate and address the property’s condition.

Importantly, the court rejected the argument that the superior landlord could simply rely on the immediate landlord to deal with repairs once serious concerns had been raised.

A useful clarification on recoverable damages

The judgment also contains a detailed discussion on the damages available under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.

The court distinguished between:

• damages recoverable for breach of contractual repairing obligations; and
• damages recoverable for breach of the statutory duty of care owed by a superior landlord.

The judge concluded that damages for general discomfort, inconvenience and distress arising from living in a property affected by disrepair are not automatically recoverable under section 4. Instead, recovery is generally linked to personal injury and damage to possessions caused by the defect.

This analysis is likely to be of particular interest to housing practitioners and landlords involved in disrepair litigation.

Practical Lessons for Landlords and Managing Agents

1. Act quickly when damp and mould is reported

Damp and mould complaints should never be treated as routine maintenance issues. Early investigation and remedial action can significantly reduce the risk of litigation and local authority enforcement.

2. Keep comprehensive records

Landlords should maintain accurate records of inspections, reports, contractor instructions and completed works. In this case, the court placed considerable weight on the tenant’s records and photographs due to the limited evidence provided by the defendants.

3. Do not ignore Improvement Notices

Failure to comply with an Improvement Notice can have serious consequences and is likely to strengthen a tenant’s claim. A clear programme of works should be implemented as soon as enforcement action is taken.

4. Superior landlords cannot always rely on management arrangements

Where properties are managed through rent-to-rent, guaranteed rent or similar arrangements, superior landlords should not assume responsibility rests entirely with the managing party. Once concerns are raised, active oversight may be required.

5. Communicate openly with tenants

Delays, conflicting explanations and unfulfilled promises were heavily criticised by the court. Clear communication and proactive updates can often help resolve issues before they escalate into formal disputes.

Conclusion

Kemp v Henderson Property Management Solutions Ltd highlights the ongoing scrutiny being applied to damp and mould complaints and reinforces the importance of complying with repairing obligations. The judgment also provides valuable guidance on the scope of a superior landlord’s liability under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, making it a decision that landlords, property managers and housing professionals should be aware of.