When is ‘in repair’ not ‘in repair’?

When a tenant makes a claim for the freehold under the 1967 Act, there is no requirement that house has to be in an assumed state of in repair as is required under the 1993 Act for a flat seeking an extended lease irrelevant of the condition the flat is in as at the date of claim.

This of course has irked landlords in the case say of a dilapidated house (where the tenant has not kept up with the obligations in the lease to keep the house in repair) where the tenant claims the freehold as the freehold value will be discounted to reflect its actual state of repair as at the valuation date with the effect of reducing the resulting premium payable for the freehold.

What though if a flat has fallen out of repair through no fault of the tenant and where a landlord has undertaken unauthorised improvements (from a building regulations & planning point of view) to a the building within which the flat is situated?

For example – unauthorised works that have caused structural cracking inside the tenants flat let alone added fire risk due to shoddy electrical works and not ventilating | installing adequate cooling to the kitchen of the delicatessen on the ground floor of the building causing excessive heat to build up inside the flat in excess of 40 degrees C.

Is it correct that the flat in the above case has to be valued in repair if the lessee wishes to extend the lease if the building within which the flat is situated falls out of repair due to the landlord’s actions?

This opens up an interesting valuation argument on which I have been instructed to advise. Watch this space!