The High Court found Dublin City Council in breach of its duty to provide a flat fit for human habitation after concluding that inadequate ventilation had caused damp and mould in a tenant’s home. It awarded her €25,000 in damages, but set off €19,679 in rent arrears claimed by the Council, leaving a net decree of €5,321 in her favour.
Mr Justice Noonan delivered judgment on 17 April 2018 in the Council’s appeal against a Circuit Court order made on 30 March 2017. The Council owned the one-bedroom flat at 302 Dolphin House, Rialto, and let it to the plaintiff under the Housing Act 1966. She had occupied it since 2008 with her young son and daughter.
The plaintiff’s claim was that damp and mould, particularly in a storeroom, made the flat unfit to live in. She said mould affected clothing, bed linen and her children’s toys, and that she had repeatedly redecorated without resolving the problem. The judge accepted her evidence about dampness and excessive moisture. The Council argued that a vent had remedied the storeroom problem and that a tumble dryer had caused or contributed to it. The plaintiff said the dryer was broken and little used.
Engineers recorded sharply different moisture readings during inspections at different times and under different conditions. The judge did not make a definitive choice between their competing opinions. He found that the evidence as a whole showed inadequate ventilation by modern standards, and noted elevated humidity readings recorded by both a Council engineer and its consulting engineer. Other complaints, including drainage and smells, were outside the appeal because they were not pleaded and had not been raised with the Council’s staff or experts.
Applying the principles in earlier Supreme Court cases, the judge held that the Council’s obligation to provide a habitable dwelling continued during the tenancy. He concluded that the significant ventilation problem and resulting damp and mould breached the implied term in the tenancy agreement that the flat be fit for human habitation. He assessed damages at €25,000 for the conditions the plaintiff had endured over a decade.
The Circuit Court had made a detailed order requiring works, but the High Court judge said there was insufficient evidence before him to determine what work was needed. He made no determination on remedial works. The Council succeeded on its counterclaim for the undisputed rent arrears of €19,679; setting those off against damages produced a net decree of €5,321 for the plaintiff.