VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal rules lessee breached lease by installing laminate flooring

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the lessee breached the lease by installing laminate flooring instead of carpet, as per the agreement. The Tribunal found that the lessee failed to provide evidence of prior approval for the laminate flooring and thus was in breach of clause 21 of the Fourth Schedule.

⚖️ Legal holding

Clause 21 of the Fourth Schedule to the lease requires the lessee to cover floors with carpet or an approved alternative material, as per the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

Topics

tenancy agreementsbreach of contract

Provisions

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.168

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal found a breach of covenant due to the installation of laminate flooring without prior approval, despite the respondent's non-admission and conditional offer to remedy.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the lessee breached the lease by installing laminate flooring instead of carpet, as per the agreement. The Tribunal found that the lessee failed to provide evidence of prior approval for the laminate flooring and thus was in breach of clause 21 of the Fourth Schedule.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/21UC/LBC/2018/0031

Property

:

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

:

[COUNSEL] LLP

Respondent: [redacted]

:

Type of Application

:

Determination of an alleged breach of covenant

Tribunal Member(s)

:

[NAME] of Directions

:

9 April 2019

DECISION

Decisions of the Tribunal

It is determined that the [NAME] [RESPONDENT] & [NAME] [RESPONDENT] are in breach of clause 21 of the Fourth Schedule to the lease dated 11 January 2014, Title number ESX356515.

2 The Application 1. The Applicant landlord seeks a determination under subsection 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the Act) that a breach of covenant contained in the Respondent’s lease has occurred. In particular, the Applicant asserts that clause 21 to the Fourth Schedule to the lease has been breached by laying laminate flooring on all floors within the flat.

2. The Respondents in this matter have applied to the Tribunal under s27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to determine the service charges payable (CHI/21UC/LAC/2018/0013) and Directions were made on 27 December 2018 that the two applications would be heard at the same time.

3. The Tribunal indicated that the applications would be determined on the papers without a hearing in accordance with rule 31 of the Tribunal’s Procedural Rules 2013 unless a part objected in writing within 14 days. No objection has been received and the applications are therefore determined on the papers.

4. The Directions required the [NAME] to serve a statement indicating whether they admitted the alleged breach and if not their reasons for opposing the application. The Applicant was then to reply before preparing a bundle of all the relevant documents for the Tribunal to consider in making its determination.

The Lease 5. The Lessee’s covenant relevant to this application are as referred to in paragraph 1 above. Clause 21 requires the lessee “To keep the floors of the Premises (other than a lower ground floor flat) covered with carpet and underfelt or with such other effective sound deadening floor covering material as shall previously be approved by the Landlord or his managing agent.” The Evidence 6. It appears that the [NAME] did not prepare the statement referred to in paragraph 4 above. However, in an email to [NAME] dated 23 January 2019 in respect of both applications they said, “In any case, leaving aside the fact that the property has been empty since from before you submitted this Application, and that you did not respond to our requests for instructions for a period 3 months following your inspection, the alleged breach of covenant is not admitted.” They reserved the right to request the Tribunal that they may submit material at a later date.

7. In the Applicant’s reply dated 6 February 2019 it was said that due to noise complaints received by the Applicant’s managing agent in January 2018 it was suspected that laminate flooring may have been laid contrary to the terms of the lease.. [NAME] were instructed,

3 and a letter sent dated 20 March 2018 requesting access and for any evidence that a previous Freeholder had consented to the flooring.

8. The Applicant’s agent visited on 30 April 2018 when it was confirmed that other than the stairs and landing all floors were covered with a laminate material.

9. Correspondence has been exchanged with the [NAME], but the breach remains to be remedied.

10. Case law was cited in support together with witness statements from [APPELLANT] of [APPELLANT] who are employed by the Applicant to manage the property and [APPELLANT] a Director of the applicant both of which supported the grounds for the application. Appended to Ms [NAME] statement were two photographs showing a bedroom and living room both of which had hard flooring.

11. In an email marked Without Prejudice and dated 2 July 2018 from Mr [RESPONDENT] to [NAME] with a copy to [RESPONDENT] the third paragraph included “We will be happy to lay carpet in the remaining areas before 30 July 2018 upon confirmation that this will represent full and final instructions following the inspection”

Discussion and Decision 12. The [NAME]’ obligation is clearly set out at clause 21 of the Fourth Schedule. Either carpet is laid or some other material previously approved.

13. No evidence of a previous approval has been given and I do not therefore have to consider whether any alternative covering has been laid.

14. The witness evidence shows that at 30 April 2018 no carpets were in place and from Mr [RESPONDENT] email of 2 July it was clear that this was accepted and whilst an offer was made to lay carpets this was subject to conditions.

15. No evidence has been submitted as to whether the conditions were met, and the carpets laid and on the balance of probabilities it appears that they were not.

16. I therefore determine that the [NAME] [RESPONDENT] & [NAME] [RESPONDENT] are in breach of clause 21 of the Fourth Schedule to the lease dated 11 January 2014, Title number ESX356515.

D [NAME] 9 April 2019

4

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking

Appendix of relevant legislation Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 S.168 No forfeiture notice before determination of breach (1)A landlord under a long lease of a dwelling may not serve a notice under section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20) (restriction on forfeiture) in respect of a breach by a tenant of a covenant or condition in the lease unless subsection (2) is satisfied. (2) This subsection is satisfied if— (a) it has been finally determined on an application under subsection (4) that the breach has occurred, (b) the tenant has admitted the breach, or

5 (c) a court in any proceedings, or an arbitral tribunal in proceedings pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement, has finally determined that the breach has occurred. (3) But a notice may not be served by virtue of subsection (2) (a) or (c) until after the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the final determination is made. (4)A landlord under a long lease of a dwelling may make an application to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination that a breach of a covenant or condition in the lease has occurred. (5)But a landlord may not make an application under subsection (4) in respect of a matter which— (a) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (b) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (c) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 9 similar decisions in this collection:

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 maintain the property in good repair according to the lease terms.
  • The tenant must comply with lease conditions regarding repairs, maintenance, and nuisance prevention.
  • The tenant must refrain from causing annoyance to neighbors.
  • The tenant must obtain written consent from the management company before keeping a dog in the demised premises.
  • The tenant must provide notice of underletting and allow the landlord access to the property at reasonable times.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • A tenant was dismissed when they failed to comply with lease covenants requiring adequate soundproofing on floors, despite previous occupants having no issues.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision concluded that the lessee was in breach of the lease by installing laminate flooring instead of carpet.

Who was involved?

The case involved a landlord and a lessee.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the lessee was in breach because they failed to provide evidence of prior approval for the laminate flooring.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the lack of evidence provided by the lessee regarding prior approval for the laminate flooring.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have proper documentation of any approvals granted for changes to the property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence such as emails and witness statements played a significant role in the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal this decision can apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) for permission to appeal.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving lease breaches.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.