Dilapidations—replacement of carpet tiles was a permitted internal alteration

Table of contents

• Original news
• What were the issues involved?
• What did the Court of Appeal decide?
• Did it matter whether the carpet tiles were landlord fixtures or landlord’s fittings?
• What did the court decide was the correct date for quantifying the landlord’s loss in the dilapidations claim?
• What are the implications of the decision?

Article summary

Property analysis: The Court of Appeal decided that carpet tiles were landlord’s fixtures, despite having been re-laid at the start of the term at the tenant’s cost. The tenant was not in breach of covenant in replacing them as this amounted to a permitted internal non-structural alteration. In addition, the tenant was not liable, under the dilapidations provisions, for a void period which was due to the landlord’s commercial decision to delay the remedial works further.