1. Schedule of Condition
What it is: A photographic and written record of the property’s condition at lease commencement, attached to your lease with appropriate limiting wording.
How it helps: If a defect was already present when you took the lease, it’s not your responsibility to fix. The Schedule of Condition provides evidence of pre-existing defects, limiting your liability to returning the property in that documented condition — not in perfect repair.
When it works: When the schedule is comprehensive, professionally prepared, and properly referenced in the lease with wording that explicitly limits your obligations.
Potential savings: Substantial. A good Schedule of Condition can eliminate claims for all pre-existing defects — sometimes the majority of a poorly prepared schedule. We’ve seen six-figure reductions based on Schedule of Condition defences.
The catch: You need to actually have one and it needs to be properly reference in the lease. If no Schedule of Condition was prepared at lease start, this defence isn’t available (though you can still argue some defects are clearly historic based on their nature).
Key point: If you have a Schedule of Condition, find it immediately. It’s the foundation of your defence.
2. Supersession
What it is: A defence based on the landlord’s intentions for the property after your lease ends. If they’re planning to demolish, substantially redevelop, or carry out works that would remove the defects anyway, your liability may be reduced or extinguished.
How it helps: Courts won’t allow landlords to recover costs for works they were never going to do. If the building is coming down, why should you pay to repair it?
When it works: When there’s evidence the landlord has genuine plans for demolition or substantial works that would supersede (replace or remove) the defects you’re being charged for. Planning applications, development proposals, marketing materials, and board minutes can all provide evidence.
Potential savings: Potentially total elimination of certain items — or the entire claim if comprehensive redevelopment is planned. Even partial supersession (works to specific areas) can significantly reduce liability.
The catch: The burden is on you to show the landlord’s intentions. Landlords often remain vague about their plans precisely to preserve their claim. Proving supersession requires investigation and evidence-gathering.
Key point: What is your landlord planning to do with the property? If they’re selling to a developer, planning refurbishment, or the building is clearly at end of economic life, supersession may apply.
3. Section 18 (Diminution)
What it is: Section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 caps damages for dilapidations claims at the amount by which the value of the landlord’s reversion (their interest in the property) is diminished by your breaches.
How it helps: Even if repairs would cost £100,000, if the disrepair only reduces the property’s value by £50,000, your liability is capped at £50,000. The landlord can’t profit from your breach.
When it works: Particularly relevant when:
- Repair costs are high relative to property value
- The property is being sold regardless of condition
- The market doesn’t significantly discount for the condition in question
- The property has a relatively short unexpired lease term
Potential savings: The difference between cost of works and diminution in value — which can be substantial, especially for lower-value properties or where repair costs are disproportionate.
The catch: Diminution valuations require expert evidence. They’re technical, disputed, and expensive to pursue. For smaller claims, the cost of the valuation may not be justified. Section 18 is most valuable for larger claims where the stakes justify the evidence costs.
Key point: Section 18 sets a ceiling on your liability. Even if every item in the schedule is valid, you don’t pay more than the actual loss to the landlord.
4. Want of Repair / Betterment
What it is: Two related defences challenging whether the landlord’s claim actually represents breach of your repairing covenant.
Want of repair: Not everything that looks tired or dated is technically in disrepair. The landlord must demonstrate an actual breach — that the item has deteriorated beyond what’s expected given the property’s age and character.
Betterment: You’re typically required to hand back the property in the condition it was at lease start (or as documented in any Schedule of Condition), not in better condition. If the landlord’s specification would improve the property beyond its original standard, that’s betterment — and you don’t have to pay for it.
How they help: These defences challenge individual items in the schedule, stripping out claims that overreach your actual obligations.
When they work:
- Items described as “worn” or “tired” that are functioning adequately
- Specifications that upgrade rather than repair (modern fittings where old ones would comply)
- Claims for components that have simply reached expected end of life (not premature failure)
- Decorations claimed as needing renewal where they remain acceptable
Potential savings: Item by item — often 10-30% of a schedule through cumulative challenges.
Key point: Examine every line item. Is it genuinely in disrepair? Would the landlord’s remedy improve rather than repair?
5. Incorrect Costing
What it is: Challenging the costs claimed for works, rather than whether the works are valid.
How it helps: Landlords’ schedules often assume premium contractor rates, gold-plated specifications, and conservative pricing. Challenging these figures can significantly reduce the claim even where the underlying items are valid.
When it works: Look for:
- Rates significantly above market averages
- Specifications beyond what’s needed to remedy the breach
- Excessive preliminaries and contractor overheads
- Duplicate or overlapping items
- Quantities that don’t match the actual property
Potential savings: Typically 15-25% on costed items, sometimes more where pricing is particularly aggressive.
The catch: Cost challenges require evidence — market rates, alternative quotations, or professional assessment. Vague assertions that costs seem high won’t succeed.
Key point: Even if every item is valid, the price isn’t necessarily right. Challenge costs systematically with evidence.
Using these defences together
These defences aren’t mutually exclusive — they work together. A comprehensive response might:
- Eliminate pre-existing items using the Schedule of Condition
- Reduce or eliminate items affected by the landlord’s redevelopment plans
- Cap remaining liability using Section 18 where appropriate
- Challenge individual items on want of repair or betterment grounds
- Contest costs on remaining valid items
Each layer of defence strips away part of the claim. The combination is often more powerful than any single defence alone.
Key Takeaways
- Schedule of Condition eliminates liability for pre-existing defects
- Supersession reduces claims when the landlord plans demolition or substantial works
- Section 18 caps liability at actual diminution in property value
- Want of repair / betterment challenges whether items are genuine breaches
- Incorrect costing reduces figures even where items are valid
- Combine defences for maximum impact — they work together
Need Help?
If you’ve received a dilapidations claim, don’t accept it at face value. We can review your lease, inspect the property, and build a defence using every available tool. Most claims can be significantly reduced with proper professional representation.
Related Services:
- Dilapidations for Tenants — Expert defence and negotiation
- Schedules of Condition for Tenants — Protection at lease start
Related Articles: