VadeLab
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Found Guilty of Failing to Maintain Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that the tenant failed to maintain the property in good repair as required by the lease agreement. This decision highlights the importance of tenants fulfilling their maintenance obligations.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant must keep the demised premises and all appurtenances in good and tenantable repair and condition.

Topics

lease obligationsproperty maintenance

Provisions

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.168(4)

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal found that the tenant had breached their obligation to maintain the property in good repair.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the tenant had breached their obligation to keep the property in good and tenantable repair and condition, as per the lease agreement.

📚 Full judgment Official document

Case Reference : MAN/OOCM/LBC/2019/0013

Properties : [ADDRESS], [APPELLANT],

Washington [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Section 168(4)

Tribunal Members : [NAME] (Deputy Regional Judge)

[NAME] (Regional Surveyor)

Date of determination :

Date of Decision : 4 March 2020

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 Summary decision

1. The Respondent has breached a covenant within his lease to keep the Property in good and tenantable repair and condition.

Application

2. [APPELLANT] applies for a determination under Section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 that Mr [RESPONDENT] has breached a Lessee’s covenant within his lease of the Property.

Background

3. The Applicant is the proprietor of the freehold and successors to the Lessor’s interest created by the lease of the Property. The Respondent is the Successor to the Leaseholder.

4. The application was made on 5 July 2019.

5. Directions made 31 August 2019 by Judge J Holbrook included "The Tribunal considers it appropriate for the matter to be determined by way of a paper determination ……" The directions gave opportunity for the parties to request a hearing. Neither party made a request.

6. The Applicant’s submissions in response to directions include copies of the Freehold and Leasehold Land Registers including the registered lease, a statement of case with submissions and copy correspondence between the Managing Agents appointed and the Respondent.

7. The Respondent has not communicated with the Tribunal.

8. The Tribunal convened on 4 March 2020 without the parties to determine the application.

The Lease

9. The lease of the Property is dated 20 December 1989 and made between [COMPANY] (1) [APPELLANT] (2) and [NAME] (3) for a term of 125 years less 3 days from 1 April 1986.

10. Paragraph 1 of the Lease defines the Property including “….. all windows window frames and glass therein …..”

11. Paragraph 3(1)(l)(i) contains the Lessee’s covenant "To keep the demised premises and all walls party walls sewers drain pipes cables wires and appurtenances thereto belonging (other than the parts thereof comprised and referred to in clause 5 hereof) in good and tenantable repair and condition …….”

12. Paragraph 5 sets out management obligations which extend to roof and main structure boundary walls, fences, gutters and rainwater pipes, gas pipes, service pipes, entranceways, landings and stairways and common parts and the communal aerial system.

3 Law

13. Section 168(1) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (the Act) states: "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."

14. Section 168(2)(a) states: "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

15. Section 168(4)(a) states: "A landlord under a long Lease of a dwelling may make an application to the First-Tier Tribunal for a determination that a breach of a covenant or condition in the Lease has occurred."

Evidence and submissions

16. The Applicant’s evidence and submissions are detailed above. It is stated that “Following a site visit it was noted that the window to the front of the Property was broken.” Following letters in March, June and July 2018 and April 2019, a site visit took place on 30 May 2019 “It was noted that the window was still in a state of disrepair.”

Tribunal's conclusions with reasons

Our conclusions are:

17. We have borne in mind the Lessee’s obligations within the Lease particularly that identified by the Applicant.

18. Noting the extent of the demise within the Lease we are satisfied that the Lessee’s obligation extends to the windows of the Property.

19. From the evidence provided by the Applicant we accept that the window was and remained in a state of disrepair throughout the period set out in the statement of case.

20. The Respondent has not communicated with the Tribunal to challenge the application and its underlying facts.

21. We conclude that the Respondent has failed to comply with his covenant identified above as claimed by the Applicant.

Order

22. The Respondent has breached the covenant in respect of repair within his Lease of the Property.

[NAME] Tribunal Judge 4 March 2020

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 10 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 maintains the property in good repair as per the lease agreement.
  • The tenant complies with the lease covenants regarding maintenance and redecoration.
  • The tenant keeps the property clean and tidy, avoiding nuisances to others.
  • The tenant fulfills the obligation to maintain the property in good and tenantable repair.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine certain breaches if they fall outside specific legal sections.

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 tenant had breached their lease covenant to maintain the property in good repair due to a broken window.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about whether the tenant had maintained the property in accordance with the lease covenant, specifically regarding a broken window.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the tenant had breached the covenant because the window remained in a state of disrepair throughout the period specified in the statement of case.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.168(4) was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the evidence provided by the applicant showing that the window was in a state of disrepair.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, as the tenant was found to have breached the lease covenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For someone in a similar situation, maintaining the property in accordance with the lease covenant is crucial to avoid breaches and potential legal action.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents that mattered included the registered lease, a statement of case with submissions, and correspondence between the managing agents and the tenant.

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.