First-tier Tribunal Rules Leaseholder in Breach of Repair Obligations
📌 In brief
In this case, a freeholder successfully argued before the First-tier Tribunal that a deceased leaseholder's a person had failed to maintain the property as required by the lease agreement. This included failing to repair damage and allowing access for inspections.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must comply with repair and maintenance obligations as set out in their lease agreement.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal found that the leaseholder breached several covenants in their lease, including repair obligations and access requirements.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined that the tenant had breached several covenants in their lease, including repair and access requirements. The decision was based on evidence showing disrepair and refusal to allow inspection.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Reference
: BIR/00CN/LBC/2025/0010
Subject Property
: Flat 14 and Garage J100
[APPELLANT]
[POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
: [APPELLANT]
([NAME])
Respondent
: [redacted] : Application under section 168(4) of the
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act
2002 for a determination that a breach of
covenant or condition in the lease of the
subject property has occurred.
Tribunal Member
: Deputy Regional Judge Gravells
Date of Decision
: 28 April 2026
_________________________________
DECISION ____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Introduction 1 By application dated 23 September 2025, the Applicant, the freeholder of the subject property, sought a determination under subsection 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 that the Respondent, the leaseholder of the property, was in breach of covenants contained in the lease. 2 In brief, the Applicant asserted that the Respondent had (i) failed to repair the subject property and (ii) failed to allow access to inspect the property. Factual background 3 On 12 February 2026 the register of title shows [NAME] as the registered proprietor of a 125-year lease of the subject property. However, a death certificate shows that [NAME] died on 27 January 2018. A probate search shows no grant of probate. 4 The Applicant’s legal representative has carried out searches to locate a next of kin or a legal representative but those searches have been unsuccessful. According to the Applicant, the subject property is believed to be occupied by a Mr [NAME]; but it is not known whether or how Mr [NAME] is related/connected to [RESPONDENT] or to the Respondent. 5 All communications have been addressed to the [NAME] of [NAME] at the subject property. 6 On 12 March 2024 [APPELLANT], the Applicant’s contractor, visited the subject property at the request of the occupant, a Mr [NAME]. Mr [NAME] noted various matters of disrepair, particularly in the bathroom, and he took a number of photographs. Following failed attempts to make contact with the Respondent, on 4 February 2025 the Applicant issued a notice of repair to the Respondent. The notice required the Respondent to carry out extensive repairs to the bathroom, including the replacement of leaking pipework, the replacement of the bath, the replacement of cracked and rotting tiles, the remedying of mould and rot and redecoration. 7 It appeared that as a result of the leaking pipework and other disrepairs water was penetrating from the subject property into [ADDRESS], the flat below the subject property. 8 The Applicant made various attempts to contact the Respondent in order to arrange an inspection of the subject property but received no response. Following the expiry of the three-month period for compliance with the notice to repair, the Respondent was notified that the Applicant’s agent would attend the property to inspect the bathroom; but no access was granted. 9 By letter dated 23 April 2025 the Applicant informed the Respondent (i) that the Applicant was entitled to commence legal proceedings in relation to alleged breaches of covenant and (ii) that the Respondent might be liable for the Applicant's professional costs. 10 On 26 June 2025 the Applicant sent a letter before action, providing the Respondent with the opportunity to remedy the alleged breaches and/or to offer an undertaking to do so and/or to raise any concerns. No response was received from the Respondent.
Lease provisions 11 By clause 5 of Schedule 2 to the lease the Respondent covenants – To keep the Demised Premises and all additions thereto in good and substantial repair and condition 12 By clause 6(a) of Schedule 2 to the lease the Respondent covenants – At all times during the term to keep the interior of the Demised Premises in good decorative order and condition and in every third year of the term and in the last year of the term (howsoever the same is determined) to paint with two coats of good quality paint and re-decorate in a good and workmanlike manner all parts of the interior of the Demised Premises which ought to be or which are usually so painted and decorated 13 By clause 7 of Schedule 2 to the lease the Respondent covenants – To permit [NAME] with or without solicitors agents surveyors workmen and others subject to reasonable notice being given and at convenient times of the day (except in the case of emergency) – (i) to enter and view the condition of the Demised Premises and to give the [NAME] or leave at the Demised Premises notice of any defects or wants of repair in the Demised Premises or other outstanding works or acts found at the Demised Premises for which the [NAME] shall be liable hereunder and if the [NAME] shall not within twenty-one days after such notice (or immediately in cases of emergency) commence and proceed diligently with the execution of such repairs and works and the performance of such acts as aforesaid and complete the same within three calendar months after such notice it shall be lawful for [NAME] and its contractors agents and workmen (but without prejudice to the right of re-entry hereinafter contained) to enter the Demised Premises to execute all such repairs and works and do such acts as may be necessary to comply with the said notice and the cost thereof shall be a debt due from the [NAME] to [NAME] and shall be forthwith recoverable as rent 14 By clause 16 of Schedule 2 to the lease the Respondent covenants – To keep all sinks baths lavatories cisterns waste and soil pipes clean and open and not to suffer dirt rubbish or other refuse to be placed or thrown therein and to keep all water and heating apparatus fully protected from frost and to keep all windows inside and outside clean to the satisfaction of [NAME] 15 By clause 18 of Schedule 2 to the lease the Respondent covenants – Not to use or permit to be used the Demised Premises and/or any other part or parts of the Development in any manner which may cause damage or be a nuisance annoyance or inconvenience to [NAME] or to the lessees or occupiers of any other part or parts of the Development Submissions of the parties 16 The Applicant submits that, by allowing the bathroom to fall into disrepair, by allowing water to penetrate from the subject property into the flat below and by refusing to allow access to the Applicant, the Respondent has breached the [NAME]’s covenants in clauses 5, 6(a), 7, 16 and 18 of Schedule 2 to the Respondent’s lease of the property. The Applicant relies on the written report of [APPELLANT], the photographs of the interior of the property and of [ADDRESS] and the correspondence sent to the Respondent.
17 The Applicant also claims legal costs in the sum of £2,666.40 under clause 12(a) of Schedule 2 to the lease (solicitor’s costs incidental to the preparation and service of any notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1025) and/or under rule 13 of the Tribunal Procedure (First- tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 (acting unreasonably in the conduct of proceedings). 18 The Respondent has made no submissions. Determination 19 The Tribunal determines that the Respondent has breached the [NAME]’s covenants in clauses 5, 6(a), 7, 16 and 18 of Schedule 2 to the Respondent’s lease of the subject property. 20 The Tribunal determines that the Respondent is liable under clause 12(a) of Schedule 2 to the Respondent’s lease to pay the Applicant’s legal costs in the sum of £2,666.40 (including VAT). Appeal 21 If a party wishes to appeal this Decision, that appeal is to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). However, a party wishing to appeal must first make written application for permission to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. 22 The application for permission to appeal must be received by the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. 23 If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason(s) for not complying with the 28-day time limit. The Tribunal will then consider the reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit. 24 The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
28 April 2026 Professor Nigel Gravells Deputy Regional Judge
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Unpayable Due to Landlord’s Failu…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Ordered to Pay Over £83k in Service Charges and Insurance Rent
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Extends HMO Licence Terms
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reduces £7500 Penalty to £2500 in Licensing Case
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Orders Landlord to Repay Rent for Unlicensed Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Lift Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Electrical Works Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Dispensation for Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Emergency Sewage Pump Work
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Service Charge Liability
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Denies Right to Buy for Elderly-Friendly Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rules Service Charge Insurance Premium Payable and Reasonable
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant must comply with repair and maintenance obligations as set out in their lease agreement.
- A tenant is entitled to challenge the payability of service charges if the landlord fails to comply with statutory requirements for notifying tenants about cost.
- A local housing authority may grant an HMO licence with conditions based on the suitability and planning status of a property.
- A local housing authority may impose a reduced financial penalty for breaches of selective licensing conditions if the breach is remedied promptly and there are.
- A landlord may obtain dispensation from consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so and no leaseholders suffer prejudice as a result.
- A landlord may obtain a determination from the First-tier Tribunal to dispense with the statutory requirement to consult leaseholders on qualifying works if it is reasonable to do so.
- A landlord may obtain dispensation from consulting tenants on urgent repair works if there is no relevant prejudice to the tenants.
- A tenant must pay service charges and insurance rent if they are reasonable and incurred in accordance with their lease terms.
- A landlord may seek and obtain dispensation from consultation requirements under section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if it is reasonable to do so.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A tenant is entitled to have service charges assessed as reasonable if they are necessary and properly incurred by the landlord.
- A tenant is entitled to have their liability to pay service charges and administration costs determined as reasonable under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal ruled that the tenant breached several covenants in their lease, including repair obligations and access requirements.
Who was involved?
A freeholder (the claimant) and a deceased leaseholder's estate (the respondent).
How did the court decide, and why?
The tribunal reviewed evidence of disrepair and lack of access to determine that the tenant had breached their obligations.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.168(4) and Law of Property Act 1925 s.146.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant's evidence showing disrepair in the property and failure to allow access for inspection.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
For the freeholder, as they proved the tenant had breached their lease obligations.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Tenants must comply with repair and access requirements set out in their leases to avoid legal action.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of disrepair, correspondence between the parties, and reports from contractors.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but permission must first be sought from the First-tier Tribunal within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek legal advice for such matters.
