Dilapidations

Dilapidations

This Overview summarises the ways in which landlord and tenant repairing obligations can arise, and their effect. It also summarises remedies for interim and terminal dilapidations, and obligations to reinstate alterations.

Landlord's repairing obligations

The landlord will only have repairing obligations to the extent of any express obligations in the tenancy, subject to a few exceptions. These include ensuring any retained premises are in such condition as to not cause damage to the tenant, and covenants implied by statute in respect of residential tenancies. For more information, see Practice Notes: Landlord and tenant implied repairing obligations and the doctrine of waste and Residential tenancies—landlord’s implied covenant of fitness for human habitation and statutory obligation to repair.

Tenant's repairing obligations

Again, unless there is an express obligation, the tenant only has limited duties in respect of repairs, including not committing waste and an implied duty to use premises in a tenant-like manner. For more information, see Practice Note: Landlord and tenant implied repairing obligations and the doctrine of waste.

What is the appropriate standard of repair?

The subject matter of an express repairing obligation is a matter

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 Property Disputes News

Conversion under section 21(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 and good faith pursuant to section 44(5) of the Companies Act 2006 (South Bank v Galiiard)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerned the granting of leases in the context of a hotel development. There are two key aspects of the Court of Appeal’s decision. First, the expansive interpretation of ‘converted’ in section 21(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) to disapply statutory limitation. Second, the Court of Appeal considered for the first time the interpretation of the deeming provision in section 44(5) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) and in particular the meaning of ‘good faith’. Written by Jack Dillon, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

MHCLG publishes explanatory notes on implementation of Renters’ Rights Act 2025

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has published Explanatory Notes to the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (RRA 2025), which received Royal Assent on 27 October 2025. The Explanatory Notes set out how the RRA 2025 will operate in practice by detailing the effect of each provision, the background to existing legal rules being amended or replaced and the intended use of new regulatory powers, including practical examples of how tenancy, possession, rent, enforcement and discrimination measures will function once commenced. The notes explain how the Act amends or repeals provisions across multiple statutes and highlight consequential and transitional adjustments required as all assured shorthold tenancies move to assured periodic tenancies and section 21 is abolished. Practitioners are directed to the notes for section‑by‑section guidance, including operational procedures, notice requirements, Tribunal processes, enforcement mechanisms, and how the Act’s interaction with existing legal frameworks (such as rent repayment orders, tenancy deposits, investigatory powers, and the Decent Homes Standard) should be understood and applied.

Right to buy service charges: structural defects unrecoverable (Tower Hamlets LBC v Leaseholders)

Local Government analysis: The appeal concerned whether leaseholders who purchased flats under the right to buy scheme were liable to contribute towards the cost of remedial works addressing major structural defects and ensuring the buildings were safe for habitation. The Court of Appeal held that right to buy (RTB) leaseholders were not liable, via service charge, for works required to remedy an inherent large panel system structural defect. The case discusses the scope of a sweeper clause requiring the landlord to carry out works it considers necessary or advisable for the safety of the building and the catch all limb of total expenditure (eg ‘any other costs and expenses…in connection with the building’). It held that such clauses did not include making good a pre existing structural defect. Dismissing the appeal, the court emphasised orthodox contractual interpretation, caution against expanding general service charge words and critically that the RTB legislative scheme was relevant to the context of the clauses within the leases at issue. The decision strengthens protection for RTB leaseholders facing building safety remediation and provides practical guidance for landlords and local authorities on the limits of broad service charge drafting and recovery strategies. Written by Sarah Salmon and Luke Decker of Cornerstone Barristers.

Building Safety Act—remediation contribution orders—respondents’ appeal dismissed in Vista Tower

Property disputes analysis: In Grey GR Ltd Partnership v Edgewater (Stevenage) and others, the Upper Tribunal has dismissed the respondents’ appeal against the First Tier Tribunal decision granting a remediation contribution order (RCO) under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022) against 75 respondents. Marcus Birch of BCLP considers the matter.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News