LTA 1985 s. 17

Court may order specific performance – LTA 1985 s. 17

Section 17 allows a court to order specific performance of a landlord's repairing covenant, including for parts of the premises not let to the tenant.

Official text LTA 1985 s. 17 — United Kingdom

In proceedings in which a tenant of a dwelling alleges a breach on the part of his landlord of a repairing covenant relating to any part of the premises in which the dwelling is comprised, the court may order specific performance of the covenant whether or not the breach relates to a part of the premises let to the tenant and notwithstanding any equitable rule restricting the scope of the remedy, whether on the basis of a lack of mutuality or otherwise. In this section— “ tenant ” includes a statutory tenant, in relation to a statutory tenant the reference to the premises let to him is to the premises of which he is a statutory tenant, “ landlord ”, in relation to a tenant, includes any person against whom the tenant has a right to enforce a repairing covenant, and “ repairing covenant ” means a covenant to repair, maintain, renew, construct or replace any property.

Text in force at .

Source: legislation.gov.uk — The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk), reproduced under licence Open Government Licence v3.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 17 answers the complaint that damages are no use when what you need is a working roof. In proceedings where a tenant of a dwelling alleges a breach by the landlord of a repairing covenant relating to any part of the premises in which the dwelling is comprised, the court may order specific performance of the covenant. Two obstacles are swept aside expressly. The order may be made "whether or not the breach relates to a part of the premises let to the tenant" - so the roof over someone else's flat, the shared stairwell, the drains under the car park are all within reach. And it may be made "notwithstanding any equitable rule restricting the scope of the remedy, whether on the basis of a lack of mutuality or otherwise", which removes the historic objection that a court would not specifically enforce a repairing obligation.

The definitions in subsection (2) widen it further. "Landlord" includes any person against whom the tenant has a right to enforce a repairing covenant, which can reach beyond the immediate landlord. "Repairing covenant" means a covenant to repair, maintain, renew, construct or replace any property - noticeably broader than repair alone. "Tenant" includes a statutory tenant.

Specific performance remains a discretionary remedy: the court decides whether to grant it, and an order has to be capable of being framed with enough precision for the landlord to know what to do and for the court to police compliance. In practice this is why disrepair claims are usually pleaded with a schedule of works drawn from a surveyor's report rather than a general request that the landlord put things right.

When it applies

  • A leak from a flat roof over another flat which the landlord will not deal with.
  • Common parts - stairs, lighting, entry doors - left in disrepair in a converted house.
  • A landlord who pays small sums in damages each year rather than doing the work.
  • A tenant who wants the works ordered before starting a family or before winter, not compensation afterwards.
  • Repairs owed by a superior landlord or a management company rather than the immediate landlord.

What this section does not say

  • It does not create a repairing obligation. There must already be a repairing covenant - express, or implied by section 11 or section 9A - for section 17 to enforce.
  • It does not guarantee an order. Specific performance stays discretionary, and a court will not make an order it cannot supervise or that is not framed with sufficient precision.
  • It is not limited to section 11 obligations, but it is limited to repairing covenants as defined: repair, maintain, renew, construct or replace.
  • It is not a route for a landlord against a tenant. The section is framed around proceedings in which a tenant of a dwelling alleges a breach by the landlord.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

Water has come through the same bedroom ceiling three winters running from a flat roof over the neighbouring flat. Each spring the landlord repaints the ceiling and pays a small sum for the inconvenience. The tenant wants the roof fixed, not another payment.

How the wording applies

Section 17 lets the court order specific performance of a repairing covenant, and it removes the two objections that used to defeat such an application: the order may be made whether or not the breach relates to a part of the premises let to the tenant, and notwithstanding equitable rules about mutuality. The fact it turns on is that the defect is in the roof over another flat, which is exactly what the first of those makes reachable - though the remedy remains discretionary and the works have to be capable of being specified precisely enough to be ordered.

How the parties settled it

The landlord commissions a roofing survey within a month and carries out the recommended works before the following autumn, with a payment schedule agreed in writing and the tenant giving access as needed.

Illustrative example

In a converted house the shared stairwell has a broken handrail, no working light and a front door that will not lock. The landlord of one flat says the common parts are the management company's problem.

How the wording applies

Subsection (2) defines 'landlord' as including any person against whom the tenant has a right to enforce a repairing covenant, and 'repairing covenant' as one to repair, maintain, renew, construct or replace - both wider than they first look. The fact that decides who the application is aimed at is therefore whether the tenant has an enforceable right against the management company as well as, or instead of, the immediate landlord.

How the parties settled it

The landlord agrees to pursue the management company and to fund the door lock and stair light immediately, recovering the cost afterwards if it can; the tenants agree to a single point of contact for reporting common-parts faults.

Related sections

LTA 1985 s. 11 Repair structure, exterior, installations – LTA 1985 s.11 LTA 1985 s. 9A Fitness for human habitation: LTA 1985 s. 9A LTA 1985 s. 12 Landlord repair limits are void under LTA 1985 s. 12

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the Acts of Parliament that apply in England and Wales.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of LTA 1985 s. 17 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in England and Wales.

← All UK legislation pages