Landlord & Tenant: Whether a landlord can require a tenant to vacate premises in order to carry out structural repairs

The High Court considers the circumstances in which a landlord can require a long leaseholder to vacate residential premises in order that structural repair works can be undertaken.

The background

MSA Properties Limited v The Drapery Northampton Ltd [2026] concerns a mixed use block in Northampton containing two commercial units and a loading bay on the ground floor, and residential flats on the floors above. The defendant is the long leaseholder of 25 flats on the first to fourth floors of the building.

In 2022, part of the structure collapsed, forming part of the ceiling of the loading bay beneath two flats on the first floor. It was found that a number of structural ceiling joists supporting the first floor beneath the two floors were rotten and evidence of historic water leaks was discovered.

The freeholder and landlord, MSA, required the defendant to vacate the property for 10 weeks in order to facilitate repair works, the scope of which included removal of internal partitioning, bathrooms and floors to the first floor flats affected, as the landlord argued that replacement of the structural joists could only take place from above.

The landlord relied upon provisions in the lease which entitled it to enter the flats for the purpose of inspecting and carrying out construction, maintenance and repair works. The landlord issued proceedings seeking specific performance of the lease, permitting it to enter the premises to carry out the works for a period of 10 weeks.

Together with an argument that the landlord’s proposal breached the quiet enjoyment covenant in its lease, the defendant argued that works could be carried out differently, accessing the affected areas from below rather than above, thus avoiding the need for tenants to vacate.

The court was asked to consider four issues:

1. Did the defective structural joists require replacement or could they be repaired?
2. Was the landlord entitled to choose to replace, rather than repair, the joists?
3. Could the works be undertaken by the landlord without requiring access to the flats above?
4. Did the defendant have a basis under the lease to refuse the landlord’s requests for access to the flats for the purposes of inspection and undertaking structural repair works?

The decision

The High Court agreed with the landlord and granted it a right of access, and exclusive possession, to carry out structural repairs for a reduced period of 6 weeks.

The court was led by the decision in Century Projects Limited v Almacantar (Centre Point) Limited [2014] which stated that a landlord must act reasonably when making decisions about repair works, considering the impact on the tenant when deciding when and how repairs are carried out, and who carries them out, where a tenant is in occupation and benefits from a covenant for quiet enjoyment. The covenant for quiet enjoyment and the landlord’s obligation to carry out repairs must be balanced; neither takes priority above the other.

Addressing each issue:

1. Seven structural joists were found to be rotten and in need of replacement. Localised repairs would have been insufficient according to the expert evidence presented.
2. The court found that, on the balance of probabilities and given the risks associated with the works, replacement of the joists should be undertaken from above, rather than below. Working from below presented risks such as lack of visibility of service infrastructure, risk of injury to workers, as well as fire hazards through loss of fire retardant panelling.
3. The landlord requested access to the flats for a period of 10 weeks. The defendant argued that 2 weeks would be sufficient. Various factors were considered by the court, including the breadth of the covenants within the lease, contingency for the order of materials and a period during which English Heritage would inspect the original flooring. The court found that undertaking the works from above required access for a period of 4-6 weeks.
4. The repair works required were significant, requiring full replacement of seven structural joists. The landlord’s expert advice, accepted by the court, was that accessing the area and carrying out the works from above was safer for the purposes of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. It was therefore reasonable to undertake the works from above when discharging its repairing obligation, notwithstanding the disruption to the leaseholder.

In this case, expert evidence demonstrated that although it was possible to carry out repair works to the structural joists from below, this approach was not appropriate as it was neither practical nor safe. Undertaking the works from below presented materially greater risks than carrying them out from above, and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to be granted access and exclusive possession to the flats for a limited period in order to complete the repairs.

The landlord was granted a 6-week period of exclusive possession, which was found by the court to be adequate. The landlord was denied its request for exclusive possession for a period of 2 days in order to undertake inspections, but was granted an order for entry.

Advice and action for landlords

This is a reassuring decision for landlords and freeholders requiring access to premises let under long leases for the purposes of significant repairs.

Evidence must show that the works are necessary, that access is required to undertake the works safely, and that the method of repair works is reasonable on balance when compared to alternatives.

The wording of the lease is also an important consideration, and must permit a landlord to enter the demised premises for the purposes of discharging its repairing and maintenance covenants, provided reasonable notice is given and disruption to the tenant minimised. Landlords and freeholders are advised to review the terms of their leases to ensure that, if required and where reasonable, access to demised premises may be permitted.