Describe the Different Obligations Imposed by the Implied and the Express Repair Covenant in a Lease.
Describe the different obligations imposed by the implied and the express repair covenant in a lease. (list the various terminologies used and explain their meaning)
A repair is ‘making good the damage so as to leave the subject as far as possible as though it had not been damaged’ defined in Clathorpe v McOscar 1924
Ultimately, the landlord wants to pass on the repairing responsibility to the tenant. Tenants will usually accept the responsibility as long as it is not too onerous. The phrase caveat emptor buyer beware meaning the tenant should know the implications when taking on the lease show in Robins v Jones 1863 ‘fraud apart there is no law against letting a tumble down house’
There are two types of repairing covenants: fully repairing and insuring (FRI) and internal repairing and insuring (IRI). A FRI covenant is common and is where a tenant takes on full repair if the building in terms of structural damage as well as general damage. An IRI covers the internal parts. An IRI covenant usually means there is a higher because the tenant has not taken on the full responsibility of repair. Lease lengths will also determine whether the lease is FRI or IRI as tenants may be reluctant to take on a FRI lease on a short lease as well as the type of properties e.g. new builds or listed buildings. The type of covenant will have an effect on valuation.
The repairing covenant should be read alongside the terms of the lease. Express covenants allow the tenant and landlord to be clear on their responsibilities. A tenant should identify state of property before a lease is made however premises are assumed to be in a ‘tenantable repair’ when the lease was granted.
Implied covenants in repair require the tenant to act in an appropriate ‘tenant – like manner’. Lord Denning ruled in 1953 that a ‘tenant must take proper care of the place….which a reasonable tenant would do’ and not damage the property wilfully or negligently. It was also ruled that if a house falls into
A repair is ‘making good the damage so as to leave the subject as far as possible as though it had not been damaged’ defined in Clathorpe v McOscar 1924
Ultimately, the landlord wants to pass on the repairing responsibility to the tenant. Tenants will usually accept the responsibility as long as it is not too onerous. The phrase caveat emptor buyer beware meaning the tenant should know the implications when taking on the lease show in Robins v Jones 1863 ‘fraud apart there is no law against letting a tumble down house’
There are two types of repairing covenants: fully repairing and insuring (FRI) and internal repairing and insuring (IRI). A FRI covenant is common and is where a tenant takes on full repair if the building in terms of structural damage as well as general damage. An IRI covers the internal parts. An IRI covenant usually means there is a higher because the tenant has not taken on the full responsibility of repair. Lease lengths will also determine whether the lease is FRI or IRI as tenants may be reluctant to take on a FRI lease on a short lease as well as the type of properties e.g. new builds or listed buildings. The type of covenant will have an effect on valuation.
The repairing covenant should be read alongside the terms of the lease. Express covenants allow the tenant and landlord to be clear on their responsibilities. A tenant should identify state of property before a lease is made however premises are assumed to be in a ‘tenantable repair’ when the lease was granted.
Implied covenants in repair require the tenant to act in an appropriate ‘tenant – like manner’. Lord Denning ruled in 1953 that a ‘tenant must take proper care of the place….which a reasonable tenant would do’ and not damage the property wilfully or negligently. It was also ruled that if a house falls into