The Duty to Repair and The Right to Quiet Enjoyment
Most leases contain obligations (referred to as covenants) on the landlord to maintain the let property in good repair, and a covenant for the landlord to ensure their tenant has quiet enjoyment, meaning they will not interfere with the tenant’s occupation and use of the property. So, what happens when a landlord is unable to fulfil their obligations to repair along with ensuring their tenant has quiet enjoyment?
Circumstances may arise where one must be prioritised over the other, and this was the focus of the judgement in the recent case of MSA Property Limited v The Drapery Northampton Ltd.
Case Facts
MSA Properties Limited (“the Claimant”) owned the freehold of 1/1A The Drapery, Northampton (“the Property”), a mixed-use building with two commercial units and a loading bay on the ground floor, and residential flats across the first to fourth floors. The flats were held by The Drapery Northampton Ltd (“the Defendant”) on a 999-year lease.
The lease contained covenants for, the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and the landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain the structure, floors, ceilings, walls and foundations of the Property. The lease also included a right of entry for the landlord to carry out repairs with a caveat that they are to cause as little damage and disturbance as reasonably practicable.
In August 2022, part of the ceiling of the loading bay, situated under flats 16 and 17, collapsed exposing historic water leaks and rotten structural joists that supported the first floor. In September 2024, the Claimant brought a claim to enforce their right of entry for inspection and repairs, and vacant possession for the 10-week estimated period needed to remedy the disrepair.
The Claimant asserted they required exclusive possession of the Property for inspection and replacement of the joists, which would involve the removal of partition walls, bathrooms and floor finishes. The Defendant contended the damage to the joists could be remedied with localised repairs. Where the joists required only localised repairs this could be done from below, whilst replacement would necessitate the works be completed from above and entail vacant possession of flats 16 and 17.
The court held that 6 of the 7 joists needed replacing, and given the risks involved, the safest option would be for the Claimant to undertake the works from above. The Claimant was permitted access to the flats for inspection but not exclusive possession, however they were granted exclusive possession for a 6-week period to remedy the collapsed ceiling.
Significance of Court Decision
This case highlights how neither covenant automatically supersedes the other and stresses the importance of balancing the relationship between the quiet enjoyment covenant and the landlord’s repair covenant and right of entry. The balance was achieved in this case with the court awarding the landlord vacant possession to carry out repairs, but only for 6 weeks and permitting access but not vacant possession for inspection.
It affirmed precedents established in previous cases, including, that the landlord has a right to choose their method of repairing damage to the property, but they must act reasonably and take into consideration:
- the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment;
- what the lease provides;
- alternative options; and
- safety factors.
Similarly, when determining whether to award vacant possession to a landlord the court will consider the facts and what is reasonable in the circumstances. In this case, whilst the works could perhaps have been carried out from below, the risks and practicalities involved, as explained in expert evidence, meant that vacating the flats and conducting the work from above was clearly more suitable.
For more information, please contact our Commercial Property Team on 0345 646 0406 or fill in our online enquiry form and a member of the team will be in touch.