Disrepair

Disrepair

Landlord’s repairing obligations

In the absence of any express contractual obligation or the intervention of statute, a landlord's obligations in relation to the fabric of premises demised are limited. At common law, the general rule is that in the absence of express stipulation or of a statutory duty, the landlord is under no liability to put the premises into repair at the commencement of the tenancy, nor normally will they be under any such liability during the continuance of the tenancy, whether the letting is from year to year or for a term of years. There are, however, a number of exceptions to this general principle which arise by statutory intervention or by reason of the circumstances of a particular case by virtue of the common law, see further Practice Note: Landlord and tenant implied repairing obligations and the doctrine of waste — Landlord's repairing obligations and: Landlords' covenants implied at common law in particular circumstances: Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant [3444] and Landlords' covenants implied by statute: Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant [3461].

Those most relevant statutory obligations on a local authority as

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Local Government News

Costs recoverability following split-liability Part 36 offers (Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School)

Dispute Resolution analysis: In this case, the Court of Appeal gave guidance on what constituted a ‘judgment’ for the purpose of CPR 36.17(1). Further, the court held that split-liability Part 36 offers can engage the costs recoverability provisions set out in CPR 36.17(4), thereby effectively overruling the arguments which culminated in the decision in Mundy v TUI UK Ltd. However, this was not the end of the matter. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that on the facts of this case, the outcome was less advantageous than the proposals contained in the claimant’s Part 36 offer. Further, the court held that there was no reason to depart from the fixed costs regime, and that it would not be ‘unjust’ to confine the claimant’s solicitors to fixed costs recoverability. Now that the uncertainty which followed Mundy has been clarified by the court, this could mark a resurgence in parties making split-liability Part 36 offers. Written by Charlotte Payne, barrister at 7KBW.

MHCLG publishes outcome of consultation on future social housing rent policy

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published the outcome of its consultation on future social housing rent policy. This publication was accompanied by the result of a separate consultation on Social Rent convergence. The consultation sought views on a draft Direction to the Regulator of Social Housing regarding rent policy effective from 1 April 2026. Exercising powers under section 197 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (HRA 2008), the proposed Direction would require the Regulator to establish regulatory standards on rents applicable to registered providers of social housing.

Local Government weekly highlights—29 January 2026

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes case analysis of R (Lyrae) v Somerset Council concerning the recurring question of when a further ‘fresh’ homelessness application amounts to an application at all and Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School on costs recoverability following split-liability Part 36 offers, with the addition of expert analysis on the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 implications for the energy sector. It includes case reports on Hampshire CC v GC concerning the local authority’s duty to maintain an EHCP during temporary relocation and R (Oliver Hawes) v Tower Hamlets LBC concerning the lawfulness of the mayor’s decision to revoke a Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme in Bethnal Green. It includes further updates on Social housing, Children’s social care, Education, Planning, Highways, Public procurement, Governance, Local government finance, Adult social care, Healthcare, Licensing and Environmental law and climate change.

To be or not to be…the recurring question of when a homelessness application is an application at all (R (Lyrae) v Somerset Council)

Local Government analysis: The High Court has followed the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Rikha Begum (as explained and applied in Minott and Ivory) that the proper approach to whether a further ‘fresh’ homeless application amounts to an application at all involves two stages of inquiry: firstly, is the subsequent application an application at all (‘stage one’), to which the answer will only be ‘no’ if it is based on precisely the same facts as the previous application (disregarding fanciful allegations and trivial facts); and secondly, if it is an application, is it well-founded which involves s.184-type inquiries (‘stage two’). In quashing and remitting Somerset’s refusal to accept a purported second application from Ms Lyrae, Eyre J rejected Somerset’s legal submissions that (i) ‘significant’ new evidence of fact meant evidence of substance which advanced matters relevant to the issue for determination, (ii) that a subsequent application was restricted where it was based on new evidence in support of a previously asserted fact if that evidence was available to the applicant at the time of the previous application, and (iii) that it was highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. He went on to find that Somerset had erred in three respects in their decision, mischaracterising the basis of the review decision, misinterpreting new evidence and carrying out stage two inquiries into the weight of that evidence at stage one. Written by Stephanie Smith, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

View Local Government by content type :

News