1.  Repairing covenants  Tenant’s covenant to repair  Landlord’s covenant/Service charge ▪ Vacation self-study exercise  Landlord’s remedies

2.  Implied obligations (p.1)  To use in tenant-like manner  To give business efficacy to the agreement  Tenant’s covenant to repair  Lease of whole/part  Interaction with other provisions ▪ Look at “Repair” and “Demised Premises” together

3.  Meaning of “repair”  Dictionary definition?  Drafting  Case law – little statutory guidance  Qualifications to “repair” (pp.1-2)  “Good and substantial”  “Tenantable”  Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe v McOscar

4.  “Repair” and “renewal”  Lurcott v Wakeley and Wheeler – although “repair” can contain elements of renewal, repair and renewal are different concepts  Credit Suisse v Beegas – (L’s covenant to repair) ▪ “to repair, amend, renew… and otherwise keep in good and tenantable condition”; reference to “… defect or want of repair…” ▪ Verbs “amend” and “renew” considered in addition to “repair” ▪ Although replacement of cladding to building too extensive for “repair”, it fell within “renew and amend”

5.  “Good condition”  Welsh v Greenwich – flat suffered mould inside due to condensation caused by lack of insulation – chattels damaged not structure ▪ “to maintain the dwelling in good condition and repair” ▪ “Good condition” a separate concept and additional to “repair” – not limited to structural condition ▪ Held – failure to maintain in good condition

6.  “Repair” and “disrepair”  Post Office v Aquarius – before liability arises under a covenant to repair there must be disrepair – unusual facts  New office building let in 1969; defect in structure of basement  Water table rose 1979-1984 – basement flooded; 1984 water table subsided – no damage caused by defect  No liability to improve to remove defect

7.  Standard of repair  Proudfoot v Hart – 3 year lease – “keep premises in good tenantable repair”  Obligation was to put and keep  Having regard to age/character of locality, making reasonably fit for occupation by tenant of class likely to take it  Distinguish Anstruther – 95 year lease, so Proudfoot standard did not apply - would mean fluctuating standard depending on tenants/neighbourhood – so standard assessed at start of term

8.  Scope of repairing covenant (p. 2, para (f))  Put and keep  Inherent defects can fall under repairing covenant ▪ Ravenseft v Davstone – cladding loose and dangerous – lengthy repairing covenant ▪ Repair doesn’t mean giving back a different thing (Lister v Lane) but it is a matter of fact and degree ▪ Use ratio of cost of works to value of property ▪ Stent v Monmouth and Creska v Hammersmith – considering replacement/expense use “sensible man” criterion

9.  Summary of relevant factors to determine whether repair (p.3)  Amending tenant’s covenant to repair (p.4)  Exclude inherent defects  Exclude insured risks  Schedule of condition  Fair wear and tear excepted  Landlord’s re-entry clause

10.  Relevance - lease of part/internal demise/unit on estate (p.5)  Service charges  Check Landlord’s covenant – to provide services  Tenant’s amendments:  See Vacation self-study exercise  Look mainly at services provided/expenses  Few legal points – mainly commercial

11.  Yielding up in repair  Decoration

12.  Damages  s18 LTA 1927 - ceiling  Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938  Forfeiture  Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938  Self-help  Jervis v Harris (debt)  Specific Performance  Rainbow Estates v Tokenhold