First-tier Tribunal Rules Tenant in Breach of Lease
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a tenant was in breach of their lease for failing to maintain the property. The tenant was required to pay for repairs after the property became unsafe due to disrepair.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must comply with their lease obligations to maintain the property.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal found the tenant in breach of their lease due to failure to maintain the property.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal determined that the tenant was in breach of their lease due to failure to repair and maintain the property, leading to safety hazards. The tribunal ordered the tenant to pay for the necessary repairs carried out by the freeholders.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CHI/OOHN/LBC/2021/0028
Property : 49 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted]
[NAME] IG Bradshaw, [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME], [NAME] [APPELLANT] ( Trustees and Executors of the [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] :
Respondent: [redacted] : Type of Application : Application for determination of breach Tribunal Members :
Judge Jim Shepherd
Date of Determination : 16th May 2022
Determination
1. In this case the Applicants, [NAME] [NAME], [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME], in their capacity as Trustees of the [COMPANY] and
2
Executors for [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] (“The Applicants”) are seeking a determination to the effect that the Respondent, [RESPONDENT] (The Respondent) has breached his lease. The Respondent is insolvent and the [NAME] are instructed. He was adjudged bankrupt on 9th March 2020.
2. The Respondent is the leaseholder of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] ( The premises). Clause 6.2 of his lease requires him as the head lessee to repair and renew and where appropriate wash down, paint and decorate to such a standard including the roof and eaves of the building. It is alleged by the Applicant that the roof was in disrepair and unsafe. The Applicant had to carry out roof works in default at a cost of £11579.
3. The witness statement of [NAME] on behalf of the Applicants outlines in clear terms the chronology of the case. In summary:
13th November 2019 – reports of stonework becoming detached form the premises. [NAME] take immediate action and make premises safe.
14th March 2019 – further reports of concrete falling. Contractors instructed to remove stone - work.
18th March 2019 – Respondent informed of urgency of the issue and risk of death.
27 March 2019 – Meeting with Respondent who says he is employing a surveyor. Nothing happens and Applicants have to carry out works in default.
3
Determination
4. It is patently clear that the Respondent is in breach of his lease . Specifically, he has breached clause 6.2. The [NAME] have carried out works in default as they were entitl4d to do at a cost of £11579. There is no breach of clause 7.1 as such because that clause is a re-entry clause giving the Applicants rights in the event of bankruptcy.
Judge Shepherd
16th May 2022
ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL Appealing against the tribunal’s decisions
1. A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional tribunal office which has been dealing with the case.
2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional tribunal office within 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties.
3. 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 for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.
4. The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. All applications for permission to appeal will be considered on the papers 5. Any application to stay the effect of the decision must be made at the same time as the application for permission to appeal.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Denies Claimant's Fee Reimbursement Request
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Dismisses Claimant's Breach of Covenant Claim Against T…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Claimant's Application for Rent Repayment Order Rejected
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charge for Major Works Reasonable and Pay…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Tenancy Covenant Breach Claims
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Late Application for Rent Increase Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Admits One Breach, Landlord Fails to Prove More - First-tier Tribuna…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Appeal Against One-Year License and £5000 Penalty
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges One-Year License and Financial Penalty
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Landlord's Claim for Service Charges
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Right to Manage Claim Under 2002 Act
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found in Breach of Multiple Lease Covenants
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 local authority failed to provide sufficient justification for a shorter license period.
- The local authority did not provide adequate evidence to support a financial penalty against the tenant.
- The property met the criteria specified under the Commonwealth and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
- Service charges claimed by the landlord complied with the terms of the lease agreement.
- The tenant acted appropriately in defending their interests without requiring reimbursement of fees.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant did not prove the breach of lease obligations on the balance of probabilities.
- The landlord's repairing responsibilities covered the breaches of covenant by the tenant.
- The process of demanding a service charge for necessary works complied with Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
- The tenant attempted to refer a rent increase notice after the proposed effective date.
- The tenant was not in breach of covenant as they complied with lease terms and provided reasonable access to headlesses.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant was found in breach of their lease for failing to maintain the property.
Who was involved?
The case involved a tenant and freeholders.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was in breach because they failed to repair and maintain the property, leading to safety issues.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the tenant's failure to comply with their lease obligations regarding property maintenance.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they comply with their lease obligations to avoid being found in breach.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Reports of disrepair and correspondence between the parties were likely important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
