VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Found Guilty of Not Maintaining Property in Good Repair

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a tenant had failed to maintain their property in good repair, violating the repairing covenant in their lease. This decision highlights the importance of tenants adhering to their maintenance responsibilities.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant must keep the property in good repair according to the terms of their lease.

Topics

repairing covenantlease obligationsproperty disrepair

Provisions

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal found that the tenant had breached their repairing covenant under the lease.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal found that the tenant had breached the repairing covenant in their lease, leading to substantial disrepair of the property.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference : MAN/OOBY/LBC/2019/0005

Property : 58 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

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

Tribunal Members : [NAME] (Deputy Regional Valuer)

[NAME] (Deputy Regional Judge)

Date of determination : 5 June 2019

Date of Decision : 7 June 2019

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 Summary decision

1. The Respondent has breached the repairing covenant in her lease relating to 58 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE].

Application

2. [APPELLANT] applies for a determination under Section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 that Ms [RESPONDENT] has breached a Lessee’s covenant within the lease of 58 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (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 current Leaseholder.

4. The application was made on 14 March 2019.

5. Directions were made 3 April 2019 by Regional Judge Duffy. They 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 and to date the Tribunal’s has not received any response from the Respondent to its directions.

6. The Applicant’s submissions in compliance with directions include copies of the Freehold and Leasehold Land Registers, copy relevant lease, a statement of case and an expert report detailing the condition and defects at the Property as at 26 and 27 February 2019, as prepared by Mr [NAME].

7. The Tribunal convened on 5 June 2019 without the parties to determine the application.

The Lease

8. The Lease dated 14 April 1948 is made between [COMPANY] (1) and [NAME] (2) (the Lease) for a term of 999 years from 25 March 1948.

9. The Lease contains under clause 2(3) the following Lessee covenant in respect of repair:

“that the lessee will throughout the said term at the expense of the Lessee and without being thereunto required well and substantially repair cleanse maintain amend and keep the said demised premises and all fixtures and additions thereto and all sewers drains watercourses and cesspools and other appurtenances thereto in good and tenantable repair and condition.”

3 Grounds, evidence and submissions

10. The grounds of the application are that the Respondent has breached the repairing obligation contained in the Lease as set above. The Applicant advises that it first became aware of the disrepair when it received formal notification of such from Liverpool City Council in a letter dated 31 October 2018. On inspection the Applicant found the Property to be in a state of substantial disrepair and estimated that the Property may have been abandoned up to 5 years previously.

11. The Applicant also enclosed an expert report in support of its case. In his report Mr [NAME] details extensive structural defects and major items of disrepair arising from a combination of vandalism, lack of repair and the abandonment of the Property. Extensive photographic evidence is also appended to the report. The list of defects extends to 18 items and include the presence of dry rot, missing or broken windows, collapsed ceilings, the failure of the original timber bressamer beam spanning the front bay window to highlight but a sample of the items noted. Law

12. 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."

13. 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

14. 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."

Tribunal's conclusions with reasons

Our conclusions are:

15. The evidence that the Property is in a substantial state of disrepair is overwhelming. The exhibits to Mr [NAME] expert report provide persuasive illustration of such.

16. The Lease covenant referred to is clear and we find that the Respondent has been in breach by failing to keep the property in good repair. As such the Applicant is entitled to a determination that this covenant has been breached.

Order

17. The Respondent has breached the following covenant within the Lease of the Property; clause 2(3).

[NAME] 5 June 2019

📊 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 property was in a significant state of disrepair, supported by extensive photographic evidence.
  • The lease clearly outlined the tenant's responsibility to maintain and repair the property.
  • The tenant failed to keep the property in good repair as required by the lease agreement.
  • An expert report detailed numerous structural defects and major disrepair items, including dry rot and collapsed ceilings.
  • The tenant did not respond to the tribunal's directions or request a hearing.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tenant had breached the repairing covenant in their lease.

Who was involved?

The case involved a landlord and a tenant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the overwhelming evidence of disrepair provided by an expert report.

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 extensive evidence of disrepair provided by an expert report.

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?

It means that tenants must adhere to their repairing obligations as stated in their lease.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographic evidence and an expert report detailing the condition and defects of the property were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

Yes, it is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving lease disputes.

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.