Tenant Found in Breach of Lease Covenants by First-tier Tribunal
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a tenant was in breach of their lease covenants because they made unauthorised alterations to their property and did not get the necessary planning permission. The ruling was made by Judge Simon Brilliant on 25 November 2019.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is in breach of a covenant in their lease if they make unauthorised alterations and fail to comply with planning legislation.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal found the tenant in breach of covenants in their lease regarding unauthorised alterations and non-compliance with planning regulations.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the tenant was in breach of covenants in their lease due to unauthorised alterations and non-compliance with planning regulations. The decision was made by Judge Simon Brilliant on 25 November 2019.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AP/LBC/2019/0080 Property : 62 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent: [redacted] : None Type of application : To determine whether a breach of covenant has occured Tribunal member :
Judge Simon Brilliant
Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 25 November 2019
DECISION
Order An order is made that the respondent is in breach of a covenant in his lease. Background 1. The respondent is the assignee of a long lessee of 62 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the flat”) under a lease dated 27 May 2002 made between (1) the applicant local authority applicant and (2) [NAME] [APPELLANT] (“the lease”).
2
2. The lease had been granted to [NAME] [NAME] under the right to buy legislation. It was assigned to the respondent on 2 March 2015.The freehold reversion remains vested in the applicant.
3. The flat is on the third and fourth floors of Lympne, which is a post war block on an estate. The flat as built contained two bedrooms.
4. The following terms of the lease are of relevance.
5. Clause 4(13) contains a covenant by the respondent, amongst other things, not to make any alteration to the flat without the licence of the applicant first obtained in writing.
6. Clause 4(15) contains a covenant to use and occupy the flat solely and exclusively as a self-contained residential flat.
7. Clause 4(15) contains a covenant, amongst other things, at all times to comply with the planning legislation.
8. The applicant made an application to the tribunal, received on 26 September 2019, asking the tribunal to make an order that a breach of covenant in the lease has occurred. The tribunal has power to make such an order under s.168 Commonhold and Leasehold Act 2002. The relevant legislation is set out in the appendix. The applicant’s case 9. The applicant puts its case in the following ways. Breach of clause 4(13)
10. The respondent has carried out extensive alterations so that it is no longer a two bedroom flat. It has been converted into four studio flats. These works were carried out without the written or any consent of the applicant. The applicant requested the respondent to reinstate the flat into its original condition on 16 January 2019, but he has failed to do so. This request was made eight months before the application was made. Breach of clause 4(15)
11. The flat is no longer being used and occupied solely and exclusively as a self- contained residential flat. Breach of clause 4(19)
12. The respondent did not obtain the necessary planning permission for converting the flat. Directions 13. A directions hearing was held on 2 October 2019. The respondent appeared in person. The tribunal directed that the hearing should be determined on paper, unless either side requested an oral hearing. Neither party has made such a request.
3
14. Paragraph 6 of the directions required the respondent to send to the tribunal by 23 October 2019 the names of the sub-tenants or occupiers of the flat.
15. Paragraph 7 of the directions required the respondent to prepare a bundle of documents by 30 October 2017. The bundle was to include, amongst other things, (a) a full statement in response to the applicant’s case, setting out in full the grounds for opposing the application; (b) any signed witness statements of fact and (c) any legal submissions.
16. The respondent has failed to comply with these directions. On 14 November 2019, the tribunal wrote to the respondent enquiring why he had not complied with these directions. There has been no response from the respondent. The evidence 17. In a letter dated 14 September 2106, the respondent wrote to the applicant indicating that only minor works had been carried out at the flat and that there were no unauthorised alterations. In a letter dated 24 January 2019, the respondent told the applicant that the flat had already been converted into four flats before he bought it, the work had been done to a poor standard, and he was simply repairing and making good these defects.
18. On 27 June 2019, the respondent emailed the applicant that one tenant had left already and this room was being stripped of sinks, counter and cupboards. He had given notice to the third tenant.
19. Mr [APPELLANT], a Lease Compliance and Home Sales Manager, made a witness statement in support of the applicant’s case dated 14 October 2019. Much of Mr [APPELLANT] witness statement relates to the respondent’s failure to allow access to the flat. But that is not one of the grounds upon which this application has been brought. Findings Breach of clause 4(13)
20. Mr [NAME] asserts in paragraph 13 of his witness statement that the respondent carried out the major conversion works.
21. Despite there being an inconsistency between the two letters referred to in paragraph 17 above, I do not consider there is sufficient evidence to show that it was the respondent, rather than [NAME] [RESPONDENT], who carried out the conversion work. Breach of clause 4(19)
22. Mr [NAME] sets out clause 4(19) of the lease in paragraph 16 of his witness statement. However, I have seen no evidence that converting the flat into four studio flats is a breach of planning permission. Breach of clause 4(15)
4
23. However, I am wholly satisfied that the respondent is in breach of clause 4(15) of the lease and I so determine.
[NAME]
25 November 2019
Annex
Appendix of relevant legislation Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
The relevant parts of s.168 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the Act” provide as follows:-
(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 (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) ......... (4) A landlord under a long lease of a dwelling may make an application to the appropriate tribunal for a determination that a breach of a covenant or condition in the lease has occurred.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found in Breach for Operating Short-Term Lettings
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Tenant Breached Lease Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found in Breach of Lease Terms by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Tenant's Application for Lease Breach Determinat…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Tenant Violated Lease Covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Finds Breach of Covenant in Tenancy Agreement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Urgent Balcony Repairs Allowed Without Full Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found Guilty of Breaching Lease Terms
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal rules tenant breached lease covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal rules on leaseholder's breach of repair and nuisance ob…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found Guilty of Multiple Lease Breaches
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 adheres strictly to the lease covenants.
- The tenant seeks necessary permissions before making alterations.
- The tenant maintains the property in good repair as required by the lease.
- The tenant complies with all conditions set forth in the lease agreement.
- The tenant does not engage in activities prohibited by the lease, such as nuisance or anti-social behavior.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.)
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision found the tenant in breach of covenants in their lease.
Who was involved?
The case involved a tenant and a local authority.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was in breach because they made unauthorised alterations and did not comply with planning regulations.
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 that the tenant made unauthorised alterations without obtaining the necessary planning permission.
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 obtain the necessary permissions before making any alterations to their property.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included witness statements and correspondence between the tenant and the local authority.
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?
It is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving lease covenants.
