© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
The applicant leaseholder was dissatisfied with the decision of the respondent freeholder to carry out works to his property. He contended that no works were necessary, only maintenance. The Council responded by setting out it’s cyclical maintenance scheme – works would be done, even if not strictly necessary, in accordance with a pre-determined schedule. The Council had some 18,500 properties to service and simply could not deal with repairs on a reactive basis, but had to undertaken maintenance based on schedules and presumed life cycles.
The question for the LVT was whether a major works programme should be carried out when the condition of the building required such works, or whether the works could be carried out as part of a planned programme of works, regales of the condition of the building itself.
The LVT found that, in the case of a large social landlord, such as the Council, it was appropriate to consider the need for planned maintenance, economies of scale and the impractical nature of responsive works. Accordingly, the works were reasonable within the meaning of s19 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Analysis
This issue is an important one – should a landlord be able to do repairs at its convenience or when they are actually necessary? The practical benefits to a large landlord, particularly a large social landlord, are obvious and it is not suggested that the LVT has erred in this case. It must be extremely unlikely that the Lands Tribunal or Court of Appeal would adopt any other approach.
However, to what extent do these ideas hold true for private sector landlords? That remains to be seen.