Claudia Julia Holy v Brentford Lock Island Residents' Association Limited

A repairing covenant must be interpreted by reference to the physical subject-matter, its condition, the standard contemplated by the parties, the work necessary to achieve that standard, and whether the work is of a kind for which the covenanting party should be liable. Where the landlord or management company chooses the works and the tenants pay, the choice must be reasonable, taking account of cost, condition, likely future works, practicality, the parties’ interests and the tenants’ views. Fire safety, insurance, mortgageability and marketability may also be relevant. A covenant to repair does not, without more, authorise replacement of components which are undamaged and in good repair.

The appellant was the leaseholder of a flat at Brentford Lock. The respondent management company was responsible under the leases for maintaining the buildings. The balconies had timber floors. Some were deteriorated, and the management company proposed replacing all the floors with non-combustible aluminium flooring.

On an application under section 27A(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the First-tier Tribunal decided that the proposed costs would in principle be recoverable through the service charge. The appellant appealed, arguing that the balcony floors formed part of the demised premises and that replacement was her responsibility. By the time of the appeal, urgent repairs had been carried out, materially changing the facts. The central issues were responsibility for the floors and whether wholesale replacement fell within the management company’s covenant.

1. Responsibility under the lease. The balcony demise comprised only the floor surface and the airspace above it. It did not include the depth of the timber flooring or the external parts of the building. The lessee’s repairing covenant therefore did not extend to the balcony flooring as a whole. The management company’s covenant to keep the buildings and every part of them in good and substantial repair covered the whole balcony flooring. Its express powers to maintain, renew, repair, rebuild and improve were sufficiently wide to include complete replacement where that was the appropriate means of complying with the covenant.
2. Scope of a repairing covenant. The question whether work falls within a repairing obligation is one of fact and degree. The court adopted a five-stage approach: identify the physical subject-matter; determine whether it is damaged or deteriorated; assess whether its condition falls below the standard contemplated by the covenant; identify the necessary work; and consider whether the work is nevertheless of a kind the parties did not contemplate as the covenanting party’s liability.
3. Where more than one remedial method is available, the covenanting party may choose the method, but where the tenants bear the cost the choice must be reasonable. Relevant factors include relative cost, existing condition, life expectancy, likely near-term need for work, the practicality of comprehensive or intermittent works, the duration of the leases, and the lessees’ views. Fire risk and effects on marketability, mortgageability, value and insurance may also be legitimate considerations.
4. The FTT was correct on the facts before it. At that time, replacing all balcony floors with aluminium was within the covenant. However, the subsequent repairs meant that the urgent condition of 15% of the balconies no longer existed. The Tribunal could not determine on the changed evidence whether comprehensive replacement remained authorised. The management company therefore had to reconsider the current facts before proceeding.
5. If the remaining floors were undamaged and in good repair, they could not be repaired merely because they were combustible. The Tribunal left open the meaning of “good ... order and condition” and whether the covenant concerning inherent structural defects could authorise replacement of otherwise sound components.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): on 8 June 2025, determined under section 27A(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 that the proposed replacement costs would in principle be recoverable as service charges.
2. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the appeal. It upheld the FTT’s conclusion in principle but stated that the changed facts meant the current entitlement to replace all balcony floors could not be determined on the available evidence.