Plymouth Community Homes Limited v Crisplane Limited

A right-to-buy lease may impose an implied covenant requiring the landlord to repair the structure and exterior of a flat and its building, including the roof. That statutory repairing obligation does not itself create a tenant’s obligation to contribute to the cost. A service-charge covenant must be construed from the lease’s express terms. Where it is tied to specified landlord covenants and the roof is expressly excluded, general wording about costs incurred in enabling the tenant to enjoy easements or similar rights does not reintroduce roof-repair costs. A right of shelter, if granted, is ordinarily negative: it prevents active removal of shelter but does not require the person providing it to fund repairs.

The freeholder of two right-to-buy flats repaired their roofs and sought service-charge contributions from the leaseholder. The First-tier Tribunal held the leaseholder liable for £7,965.60 in respect of each flat. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), in [2024] UKUT 15 (LC), allowed the leaseholder’s appeal.

The freeholder appealed to the Court of Appeal. The issues were whether the leases required contributions towards roof repairs, notwithstanding statutory implied repairing covenants, and whether general wording concerning rights granted by the leases extended to roof-repair costs.

The appeal was dismissed. Lord Justice Nugee gave the judgment, with Lord Justices Stuart-Smith and Holroyde agreeing.

1. Number 96. Section 139(1) and Part III of Schedule 6 to the Housing Act 1985 required the lease to be read with the statutory implied landlord covenant to repair the structure and exterior of the flat and building, including the roof. No County Court order had modified that covenant under paragraph 14(4). Paragraph 16A was permissive and did not itself impose a tenant’s obligation to contribute to the landlord’s costs. The leaseholder had agreed to contribute only to costs incurred in performing the landlord’s express obligations in Schedule 4. Those obligations excluded the roof. The statutory implied covenant was additional and did not require paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to be rewritten. The approach was consistent with Great Arthur House [2021] EWCA Civ 431.
2. Number 146. The lease expressly excluded the roof from the relevant repair covenant and excluded the reserved premises, including the roof, from the service-charge obligation. The general words concerning costs incurred in enabling enjoyment of rights in Schedule 1 could not, on ordinary principles of construction, reintroduce liability for roof repairs. The court assumed that the lease might confer a right of shelter. By analogy with Bond v Nottingham Corporation [1940] Ch 429, such a right was negative in character and did not require the owner to spend money on repairs. That was an additional reason; the express contractual wording was sufficient.

Both grounds of appeal failed. The Upper Tribunal’s decision was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): in [2025] EWCA Civ 346, dismissed the freeholder’s appeal.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): in [2024] UKUT 15 (LC), allowed the leaseholder’s appeal.
• First-tier Tribunal: on 12 April 2023, held the leaseholder liable to contribute to the roof-repair costs.
• County Court: proceedings began there, but liability for the service charge was transferred to the First-tier Tribunal.