The High Court has handed down what is likely to become an important authority for housing conditions practitioners in Harvey v Heaver [2026] EWHC 1671 (KB).
Whilst the case arose from a claim involving widespread damp, mould and serious housing defects, its wider significance lies in the Court’s detailed consideration of the legal test for determining whether a property is unfit for human habitation under sections 9A and 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
For those acting in housing conditions litigation, the judgment provides valuable guidance on how the legislation introduced by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 should now be interpreted.
The background
The claim concerned a family of six living in a rented property affected by extensive housing defects, including:
- significant damp and mould throughout the property;
- water ingress through the roof and external walls;
- a damaged asbestos ceiling;
- rodent infestation;
- drainage issues; and
- defects to the heating system.
Following a three-day High Court trial, the Court concluded that the property was unfit for human habitation and granted specific performance requiring the landlord to carry out the necessary remedial works.
More than simply another housing conditions case
Although the factual findings are significant, the real importance of the judgment is the Court’s extensive analysis of the statutory fitness test.
The Court reviewed the legislative history behind sections 9A and 10, previous authorities dating back decades and the interaction between the fitness provisions and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
Importantly, the judgment confirms that a property may be considered unfit where:
- conditions create a risk to the health or safety of occupiers; or
- the defects are sufficiently serious to prevent occupation with reasonable comfort and convenience.
The Court also confirmed that multiple defects should be considered collectively when assessing whether a property is fit for human habitation.
Damp and mould remain central
The Court had little hesitation in concluding that extensive damp and mould rendered the property unfit.
The judgment also reinforces an increasingly familiar theme within housing litigation – that landlords cannot simply attribute damp and mould to tenant lifestyle where the underlying causes are defects within the building itself.
Relying on both expert evidence and current government guidance, the Court found the problems were primarily caused by defects to the structure, including moisture ingress through the roof, chimneys and external walls, rather than the tenants’ day-to-day occupation of the property.
Helpful guidance on section 9A claims
The judgment also provides useful clarification on a number of issues that frequently arise in housing conditions litigation, including:
- the scope of the implied fitness covenant under section 9A;
- the relationship between section 9A claims and traditional section 11 disrepair claims;
- the statutory defence where unfitness is wholly or mainly attributable to the tenant’s own breach of covenant; and
- the circumstances in which the Court may order specific performance requiring landlords to carry out remedial works.
Why this matters
Higher court decisions considering sections 9A and 10 have, to date, remained elusive.
This judgment provides a clear and carefully reasoned analysis of the statutory framework which is likely to be cited frequently in future housing conditions litigation. It gives practitioners greater certainty when assessing claims involving fitness for human habitation and offers valuable guidance on how the courts are likely to approach these issues going forward.
As housing conditions claims continue to evolve, decisions such as Harvey v Heaver help clarify both the legal principles and the practical application of the legislation.
Craig Leigh comments: “This is a genuinely useful judgment for anyone involved in housing conditions litigation. The Court provides clear guidance on the approach to sections 9A and 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and reinforces a number of important principles that will assist practitioners in future cases. I expect it will become a decision that housing lawyers refer back to regularly.”
