The Defective Premises Act 1972 (“DPA 1972”) (effective in England and Wales from 010174), was intended to help purchasers and others of defective new dwellings, and was the legislation that was passed into law following the high level 1970 report referred to on the first page of this web site. The full Act can be found here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35

The main section concerning the provision of new dwellings is s.1(1), which provides as follows:

‘ 1 Duty to Build Dwellings Properly.

1. 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 a 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…’

The DPA 1972 is good for purchasers of defective dwellings e.g.:

i.  The House-builders cannot contract out of the statutory duty e.g. by its standard terms and conditions (despite their efforts to do so);

ii.  It is not only the house-builder that is caught by its provisions but others including other contractors and professional people;

iii. Ordinarily the householder has six years to bring a claim against a wayward House-builder.

It does not seem to be doubted that what was intended following the publication of the report before Parliament in 1970 (referred to on page 1 of this web site) was that s.1(1), the statutory duty, was in favour of purchasers, and gives rise to a threefold duty to see that the work is done:

 i. in a workmanlike or professional manner;

ii.  with proper materials and,

iii. so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed.

This would have the consequence that breach of any of the strands (i) to (iii) above would result in breach of statutory duty.

Unfortunately, and by contrast, the Court of Appeal, has held that s1(1) of the 1972 Act,  is a single duty in the sense that the work has to be done in a workmanlike or professional manner with proper materials with the particular result that the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed.

Accordingly, it is said by or on behalf of House-builders (to the detriment of purchasers of new dwellings) that: 

i.   there is no breach if the work is not done in a workmanlike or professional manner with proper materials unless that results in the dwelling not being fit for habitation when complete;

ii.  the High Court (or even lower courts) who may hear the claim cannot construe s. 1 (1) of the 1972 differently as they are bound by the decision in the Court of Appeal (even though the  Court was not referred to the 1970 Report to which I have referred and which resulted in the passing of the 1972 Act into legislation and with opposite meaning intended[1]).

This is therefore a (statutory) setback for Claimants seeking to rely upon the very legislation that was introduced to give them strengthened rights.

This legal position needs to be challenged. This is why the petition to Parliament has been initiated, which requires 100,000 supporters.

Currently, at trial Judge level, at least, purchasers of new dwellings need to prove that all the three requirements of s. 1(1) were breached.

There are other statutory provisions that may assist purchasers of new dwellings.

Next Section: Houses of Parliament Petition

[1] Other authorities also give weight to the incorrect decision of the Court of Appeal which therefore needs to be challenged by or on behalf of purchasers of new dwellings.