A tranquil fishpond might seem harmless, but when young children are around, it can become a potential safety hazard. Are landlords legally required to fence such features, or do the rules only apply to swimming pools? This case delves into where the legal boundaries lie when it comes to water features on rental properties.
Case Background:
This case involves a tenant who argued that a fishpond on the property should be fenced because its depth exceeded 400mm. Her concern was focused particularly on the safety of her young children. However, the landlord countered that the obligation to the fence applies only to pools, not to ponds or other natural bodies of water that are not intended for swimming.
Legal Authorities:
Building Act 2004: Defines a “pool” as any excavation or structure normally used for swimming, paddling, or bathing. This definition was further clarified by the Building (Pools) Amendment Act 2016. Generally, any swimming pool that is at least 400mm in depth requires a compliant fence.
Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (Repealed): Previously had a broader definition that included any structure capable of being used for swimming, wading, or bathing.
Landlord’s Response:
The landlord relied on the current legal definitions under the Building Act 2004, arguing that the fishpond does not qualify as a “pool” and therefore does not require fencing under the law. He acknowledged the tenant’s concerns but emphasised that the pond’s intended purpose was not for swimming or bathing, aligning with the law’s requirements.
So, what was the outcome? And what are the key takeaways?
