Defective Premises Act 1972

Defective Premises Act 1972

Act of Parliament
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long title	An Act to impose duties in connection with the provision of dwellings and otherwise to amend the law of England and Wales as to liability for injury or damage caused to persons through defects in the state of premises.
Citation	1972 c. 35
Territorial extent	England and Wales
Dates
Royal assent	29 June 1972
Commencement	1 January 1974
Other legislation
Relates to	Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
Status: Current legislation
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Defective Premises Act 1972 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The Defective Premises Act 1972 (c. 35) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers landlords' and builders' liability for poorly constructed and poorly maintained buildings, along with any injuries that may result. During the 19th century, the common law principle that a landlord could not be liable for letting a poorly maintained house was established, while a long-running principle was that, in practice, builders could not be sued for constructing defective buildings. The courts began to turn against the first principle during the 20th century, imposing several restrictions on the landlord's immunity, but the landlord was still largely free from being sued.

The Defective Premises Bill was introduced to the House of Commons as a private member's bill by Ivor Richard on 1 December 1971, and given the royal assent on 29 June 1972, coming into force as the Defective Premises Act 1972 on 1 January 1974. The act establishes a duty of care builders and their sub-contractors owe to the occupiers of property they construct or modify, and also establishes a duty of care landlords hold towards their tenants and any third parties who might be injured by their failure to maintain or repair property. The act received a mixed reaction from critics; while some complimented it on its simple nature compared to the previously complex common rule laws, others felt that it was too limited for what was desired to be achieved, and that the wording used was at times both too vague and too specific.