When A Freeholder Refuses To Replace A Damaged Door What Can A Leaseholder Do?
Advisers to freeholders are often asked to pick up the pieces when something has already gone wrong, writes Zah Azeem MRICS, Partner at Wimbledon based Chartered Surveyors Scrivener Tibbatts.
The following scenario which I recently read in Property118 is a good example of how a relatively straightforward incident can escalate into a wider lease compliance problem if it is not handled promptly and correctly.
In a converted block of four flats, the freeholder owns two units and the remaining two are held on long leases. The leases place responsibility for the structure and common parts on the freeholder. Police attended one of the freeholder’s flats to arrest a tenant and forcibly gained entry by kicking in the main communal front door. The door was subsequently boarded up, preventing residents from accessing or exiting the building, until a tenant removed the boarding to restore access. The police advised that reinstatement of the door was a landlord issue.
The freeholder’s initial response was to deny responsibility for replacing the door. From an advisory perspective, that position is difficult to defend. A main entrance door is almost invariably part of the common parts, and where the lease places repair and maintenance obligations on the freeholder, those obligations are engaged regardless of how the damage arose. The fact that the damage resulted from enforcement action connected to the freeholder’s own flat further weakens any argument that the cost could be shifted elsewhere or treated as a service charge item.
For advisers, the key issue is not simply who is “at fault”, but how to manage risk and limit escalation. A refusal to act in circumstances like this can quickly lead to claims for breach of lease, applications for injunctive relief, or recovery action via Money Claim Online if leaseholders step in to carry out the works themselves. Once matters reach that stage, costs, management time and reputational damage tend to increase disproportionately compared with the relatively modest cost of resolving the issue at the outset.
The position becomes more serious where the freeholder is also unable or unwilling to provide evidence of buildings insurance. From an adviser’s standpoint, this should trigger immediate concern. Failure to insure in accordance with the lease is a fundamental breach and exposes the freeholder to significant legal and financial risk, particularly if further damage occurs while the building is uninsured. It also undermines the freeholder’s position in any wider dispute, as it suggests a pattern of non-compliance rather than an isolated disagreement.
Guidance on the consequences of failing to insure and the remedies available to leaseholders is readily accessible, including from Property118 and the Leasehold Advisory Service. Advisers should be familiar with these risks and ensure that freeholder clients understand that insurance compliance is not optional or merely administrative.
The broader lesson for those advising freeholders is that early, pragmatic compliance is often the most defensible strategy. Replacing a damaged communal door promptly, regularising insurance arrangements and communicating clearly with leaseholders will almost always cost less than resisting clear lease obligations and inviting formal enforcement. In situations like this, good advice is not about finding creative arguments to avoid responsibility, but about helping freeholders discharge their obligations in a way that contains risk and prevents a minor incident from becoming a much larger problem.
If you would like to discuss something related to a property valuation specifically a Lease Extension, Freehold Valuations and Market Valuations for disputes, please contact Zah direct via email at zah@scrivenertibbatts.co.uk or call 020 8947 7040.
(Image: Pexels.com_Bob Jenkin)
