staircase bannister, building regulations rental property

[freddiemercurystwin]

Again, no specific case law mentioned there, anyway I don't think anyone in the thread has not recommended making the stairs safe in anycase.

 

[johnny2007]

Yep rubbish find the case law that supports your argument .....

Am I your secretary???
Find it yourself you fool.

You could start with https://www.google.com/search?q=landlord+sued+by+tenant&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Perhaps look at https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/landlord-liable-injuries-tenant. While not exactly the same, it indicates that a landlord can be held liable if they fail to keep the property "reasonably safe". This is why, above, I mentioned always complying with current regulations even if changes don't apply retrospectively.
So, the stairs may well have met regs when originally built - but they don't now. The landlord should reasonably know that they don't meet current regs. So there is a strong case for arguing that without improvement, the property is not "reasonably" safe. It's simply not possible to say in advance which way a court would rule - as that article points out, it depends on circumstances, and I'd suggest the landlord is more likely to be held liable if a child is injured than if a reasonably competent (i.e. someone who is not disabled such as to need better protection, and is mentally competent in terms of being able to see common risks) adult is.

While clearly a sales pitch, this article deals specifically with stairs https://www.bartletts.co.uk/can-i-claim-compensation-from-landlord-for-falling-down-the-stairs/#:~:text=Landlords' Responsibility for Safety of,Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
And again, this one makes it clear that if a landlord ignores a risk they could reasonably eliminate or mitigate then they can be found liable. https://www.arthuronline.co.uk/arth...rd-be-held-liable-for-a-tenants-injury-part-1

The voice of reason.

 

[johnny2007]

Op, do whatever you need to do with that balauster and you won't have to worry about court cases and arguing the toss of legality.
As said, it'll cost peanuts and you can do it yourself.
Unless @freddiemercurystwin wants to take full responsibility for your (non) actions and give you a full liability insurance in his name...

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Landlords Liability for an Unsafe Staircase | Raymond Saul & Co LLP

rslaw.co.uk

 

[johnny2007]

Landlords Liability for an Unsafe Staircase | Raymond Saul & Co LLP

rslaw.co.uk

I am sure the landlord was not worried and sleeping like a baby whilst going through this court case.
I am also sure his solicitor worked for free.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I don't really know why you're getting in such a pickle, I've merely pointed out the legal standpoint, I've also recommended the OP makes it safe.

 

[johnny2007]

I don't really know why you're getting in such a pickle, I've merely pointed out the legal standpoint, I've also recommended the OP makes it safe.

The legal standpoint is that there's one previous court case.
It doesn't mean that all landlords can ignore things that they know could be a safety risk.
I'm sure there are other cases where landlords were found to be at fault for dodgy staircases.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

No, for the last time, the legal standpoint is that there is no lawful requirement for a landlord to make a handrail any safer than the one that was built when the house was built.

 

[noseall]

The legal standpoint is that there's one previous court case.
It doesn't mean that all landlords can ignore things that they know could be a safety risk.
I'm sure there are other cases where landlords were found to be at fault for dodgy staircases.

Freddie is correct.

However, I'd be more minded to improve that cobbled together handrail, just for my own peace of mind.