Canterbury & Kent

Harvey v Heaver: How a Single Joint Expert Surveyor Decided a High Court Fitness-for-Habitation Claim and What It Means for Kent Landlords and Tenants of Period Rental Homes, November 2026

Get a Fixed-Fee QuoteCall 0204 579 8270

One surveyor’s report, agreed to by both sides, was all the High Court needed to declare a rented farmhouse unfit to live in. The court did not have to weigh rival experts or even hear the tenants on the point. For landlords and tenants of older homes, Harvey v Heaver shows how much rests on the fitness for human habitation claim surveyor, and why the inspection matters more than the argument.

Key Takeaways

• Harvey v Heaver [2026] EWHC 1671 (KB) is a High Court decision on section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
• The court relied on the uncontested report of a single joint expert to find the property unfit on 25 June 2026.
• Damp and mould alone was enough for unfitness. So was a damaged asbestos ceiling, until repaired.
• The landlord was ordered to carry out the remedial works, estimated at £39,150 excluding VAT.
• The court refused to order the landlord to rehouse the tenants during the works.

The case in brief

The decision was reported by the housing law blog Nearly Legal on 8 October 2026.

The tenants, a couple with four children, had rented the house on assured shorthold tenancies since September 2020. It was a four-bedroom, mid-19th-century house in a former farm complex near Chichester, with an EPC rating of E.

They claimed under sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. They asked for an order that repairs be done, temporary rehousing during the works, and damages. Unusually, the claim was issued in the High Court.

After a three-day hearing, the court decided one question: whether the house was fit for human habitation now and going forward. Claims about past disrepair, personal injury and other matters were sent to the County Court.

What the single joint expert found

The single joint expert was a surveyor instructed by both sides. His report was not challenged. He found:

Defect	Finding
Damp and mould	In every habitable room and both roof spaces, caused by poor thermal performance and active moisture ingress
Thermal performance	Reduced, from which the court inferred a risk of excess cold
Bedroom ceiling	Cracked and bulging, with a chrysotile asbestos coating identified in an earlier survey
Pests	An active rodent infestation
Drainage	A damaged septic tank vent
Heating	Defects to the oil supply and wood-burning stove
Garden fence	Defective, but the tenant’s responsibility under the tenancy

Electrical dangers found in an earlier electrical inspection had been fixed before the hearing. The remedial works were estimated at £39,150 excluding VAT, taking four to six weeks.

What the court decided

The test for fitness

The court held that the 2018 changes to the law did not alter the core test. Older authorities, Summers v Salford Corporation and Rendlesham Estates v Barr, remain a reliable guide. There are two limbs:

1. A risk to health or safety.
2. A sufficiently serious effect on comfort and convenience, even without such a risk.

Hazards listed under the Housing Act 2004 are relevant. A category 1 or 2 hazard finding is strong evidence of unfitness, but it is not required.

The findings

The house was unfit on 25 June 2026. The damp alone was enough. The asbestos ceiling alone was enough until it was repaired or replaced.

Tenant fault

The landlord had argued that the unfitness was wholly or mainly the tenants’ fault. That argument was withdrawn at trial. The court explained that “wholly or mainly” is a high threshold.

The orders

• Repairs ordered. The landlord must carry out the remedial works.
• Costs. Awarded to the tenants on the standard basis, with a payment on account.
• Rehousing refused. There is no freestanding right for a private tenant to be rehoused during works. Relocation costs are normally claimed as damages at the end of the case. The expert had not said the family needed to move out.
• Late defence refused. The landlord tried late to plead that the tenants had refused access. The court refused because of delay, lack of explanation and prejudice. The point had not been put to the expert.

The court left open whether a landlord must have notice of a defect before liability under the fitness covenant arises. As a High Court decision, it binds the county courts.

Expert evidence: why the single joint expert was decisive

A single joint expert is one expert instructed by both parties under CPR Part 35. Both sides agree the instructions and can put written questions. The expert’s duty is to the court.

Three features of the case show the weight this carries.

• An unchallenged joint report can end the argument. Neither side had its own expert to contradict it.
• Points not put to the expert are lost. The landlord’s access defence failed partly because the expert had never been asked about it.
• The report set the remedy. The schedule of works and the estimate became the basis of the court’s order.

For either side, the instructions to the expert are the moment that matters. Every issue the party may want to run at trial, including occupier behaviour and access, should be in the letter of instruction or the written questions.

What a fitness for human habitation claim surveyor inspects

A surveyor reporting for a section 9A claim will normally cover:

• Damp and mould. Extent, moisture readings, and cause: penetrating damp, rising damp, leaks, or condensation linked to poor insulation and ventilation.
• Thermal performance. Insulation, glazing, heating capacity and controls.
• Structure. Ceilings, floors, stairs and any risk of collapse.
• Hazardous materials. Suspected asbestos, with sampling where needed.
• Services. Water, drainage, electrics, heating fuel supply.
• Pests. Evidence of infestation and entry points.
• Cause and responsibility. Whether each defect arises from the building or from the way it is used.
• Remedy. A schedule of works with estimated cost and duration.

What this means for Kent landlords and tenants

Kent has a large stock of older rented homes: converted oasts and farm buildings, timber-framed cottages, and Victorian terraces in Canterbury, Whitstable and Faversham. Solid walls, old roofs and off-mains drainage make them prone to the defects found in this case.

Landlords

• Commission a condition survey before letting or at renewal, with a specific damp and thermal assessment for a low EPC rating.
• Deal with asbestos-containing ceilings and coatings that are damaged.
• Check septic tanks, oil tanks and solid fuel appliances.
• Keep records of inspections, reports and access requests.
• If a claim arrives, engage with the joint expert process fully and early.

Tenants and advisers

• Report defects in writing and keep copies.
• A fitness claim can cover comfort and convenience, not only health risks.
• Do not expect a court order for rehousing. Keep records of any relocation costs for a damages claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a single joint expert?

One independent expert instructed by both sides, whose duty is to the court.

Can damp alone make a home unfit?

Yes. In this case the damp and mould was sufficient on its own.

Can a landlord blame the tenant’s lifestyle?

Only if the tenant’s conduct is wholly or mainly the cause. The court described that as a high threshold.

Does the landlord have to rehouse the tenant during works?

The court refused to order it for these private tenants. Relocation costs may be claimed as damages.

Conclusion

Harvey v Heaver confirms that an older home with widespread damp, poor insulation or damaged asbestos can be declared unfit on the strength of one surveyor’s report. Landlords of period property should find out the condition of their buildings before a court-appointed expert does.

Canterbury Surveyors carries out condition surveys and damp investigations across Kent, and acts as single joint expert and expert witness in housing condition claims.