Identity of Kingsbury recently discovered by C’s and works done by Kingsbury Construction on 01.11.04 (and not 01.01.04 sorry) in relation to the glass brick pavement (lights)
Difficult to argue Guild that the principle in ‘Guilds’ case cannot apply and any landlord is well advised to repair and that appears to be the attitude of Jaqui Greene. In the very nature of the material securing the pavement lights that may leak from time to time unlike a water pipe. If pipe does leak clearly alerts occupier to urgent need to remedy and remedy pipes require jubilee clips and degree speed and skill not readily effected by tenant. But because a tenant in the position of C’s in this case could so readily reach the pavement lights to do the repair and thereby relieve D of the ‘duty’ the tenant could very easily mitigate damage. Tenant would be better aware than D in this case that leaking!!! Make these observations so that the principles of law are not detached from reality.
D’s short answer in this case Caveat Lessee
Satisfied defect at the time of grant
May 2004, Mr UK first response, landlord not responsible and that is another matter which is debateable.
First written evidence Jaqui Greene emails 15.10.04 D1/125 and 25 ND 25.10.04 after she had written those one finds works were done by kingsbury.
Identity of Kingsbury recently discovered by C’s and works done by them 01.01.04
‘Notification’ that Kingsbury was the contractor given to D’s by Sept 2004.