Alterations and improvements

Alterations

Leases usually restrict the tenant's right to alter the demised premises. The purpose of the covenant is to protect the landlord from the tenant effecting alterations and additions which damage their property interests. In the absence of a covenant, the tenant is free to alter the premises within the demise. But note that there may be implied covenants, such as those concerning waste (see Practice Note: Landlord and tenant implied repairing obligations and the doctrine of waste).

Tenant covenants in modern leases are usually far more extensive and will need to be reviewed carefully for their precise effect.

Alterations outside of the demised premises

In the absence of an express right for the tenant to do works outside of the premises, a landlord has complete freedom to refuse consent to alterations outside the demise. Any alterations undertaken without consent will constitute trespass. For information on trespass generally, see Practice Note: Trespass—claims and defences.

See Practice Note: Alterations outside the demise.

Absolute covenants

An absolute covenant (that is, one that completely prohibits alterations, with no provision for consent) is a complete

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

Property Disputes weekly highlights—9 January 2025

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: a Court of Appeal decision finding that the tenancy condition in section 81 Housing Act 1985 can be satisfied even where the tenant does not intend to return to the premises as a tenant, High Court decisions on the court’s jurisdiction to determine whether in point of law a particular debt is a ‘moratorium debt’ under the Debt Respite Scheme, and the causal link that must be established between the negligent advice and subsequent conduct of a property developer, on the interpretation of restrictions in a nomination rights deed on the disposal of property, on a parties’ termination clause which was found to exclude the ‘breach of contract principle’, a decision that a short LTA 1987 section 22 notice period was immaterial in light of landlord’s continued failure to remedy issues, and whether or not a right to forfeit had arisen. Upper Tribunal decisions on compensation for loss of amenity flowing from a redevelopment scheme and the court exercising its discretion to modify a restrictive covenant affecting land and overruling the First-tier Tribunal’s decision not to determine service charges due to lack of information, and a decision that a lawful assignee assuming primary responsibility for obligations in the licence agreement will be party to the Code agreement. It also includes a snapshot of key property developments to look out for in 2025.

Snapshot of key property developments to look out for in 2025

Property analysis: This analysis provides a snapshot of some of the key property developments to look out for in 2025.

Debt respite scheme—jurisdiction (Seculink Ltd v Forbes)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In the first appellate decision at High Court level on the surprisingly far-reaching Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (the Debt Respite Regulations), SI 2020/1311, the High Court allowed the creditor’s appeal in a decision which is decidedly creditor-friendly. Sir Anthony Mann held that: (1) the courts retain the jurisdiction at all times to determine whether in point of law a particular debt is a ‘moratorium debt’, regardless of whether a creditor has exercised the review machinery under the Debt Respite Regulations; and, (2) where proceedings are live when a moratorium is entered into, a creditor does not need the court’s permission to proceed up to entry of judgment. Written by Tom Morris, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

Was the tenant’s intention to return to the property as an owner sufficient to satisfy the ‘tenant condition’ (Hackney London Borough Council v Weintraub)

Local Government analysis: This judgment is another in a string of decisions concerning the interpretation of the tenant condition. The issue in this case was narrower than in previous hearings. Hackney appealed the previous judgment of Mr Justice Zacaroli made in April 2024. Hackney appealed on the basis that an intention to return to the property as an owner cannot satisfy the ‘tenant condition’. The judge in this case disagreed with such an assertion and the appeal was dismissed. There were other elements to the appeal, but those fell by the wayside. The Judge held that the tenancy condition can be satisfied even where the tenant does not intend to return to the premises as a tenant. It was held that there is no suggestion within the legislative provision that a return as a tenant is required. The condition remains satisfied if a tenant intends to return in any capacity, as long as this can be measured and shown against objective ascertained fact. Written by Clive Adams, head of Housing Management at Birketts LLP.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News