In the early 1980s this circumstance was changed by a few cases In one of the

In the early 1980s this circumstance was changed by a

This preview shows page 5 - 8 out of 16 pages.

In the early 1980s, this circumstance was changed by a few cases. In one of the cases, blocks of flats that had been built without fixing the extension joints because there never existed during development with the outcomes that the structure's stone cladding was taking Caterpillar: Confidential Green
Image of page 5
THE UNITED KINGDOM PROPERTY LAW 6 steps to tumble off. Nonetheless, when the case expansion joints had been turned around, the court assumed that to use advancement joints to repair the condition would be seen as a repair, not an improvement. For another situation that concerned the landlord’s covenant to repair under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the court gave three tests to distinguish repair from renewal: What are the expenses about the estimation of the structure previously and the impact it has on the life expectancy and cost of the building? Whether the alterations are to take place only to a part of the structure or the entire structure. Regardless of whether the effect of the alteration was to create a different building from the previous one. As per the individual case, the tests are to be applied concurrently or separately, furthermore, the ends will fluctuate according to the age and nature of the premises, the express terms of the tenure, and the state of the premises when the occupant moved in. However, the works by the landlord drove in a total difference in the windows, height, and rooftops to practically all highlights of the property and an extensive augmentation to the value and life of the property. Right now, the court inferred that the works were not ones of repair but instead renewal. According to Miller and Hatcher (2014), the interpretations of the above tests gives the following results: For the first test, the inexact expense of supplanting the top of a structure was 82000 euros, which spoke to 40 to half of the estimation of the structure with another rooftop. In any case, a much smaller proportion of the assessed cost of reconstructing the whole property and was viewed as a repair. Caterpillar: Confidential Green
Image of page 6
THE UNITED KINGDOM PROPERTY LAW 7 For the second test, rebuilding a wall of a house was found to be a repair, whereas rebuilding the home after demolition was renewal. In the third test, replacement of a lean-to utility space to the rear of a property with a progressively strong structure was seen as renewed and not repair. Improvements LTA 1927. S 3 allows the tenants to conduct improvement and on quitting obtain compensation for them regardless of any prohibitions in the lease ( Cronon 2011). Improvement notice procedure The tenant must strict time limits and comply with the correct procedures: the tenant must give notice in written form of its intention with plan and specification detailing the demised premise and improvement to which it relates.
Image of page 7
Image of page 8

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 16 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes