56 Day Rule: Painting or Repair? Dilapidations in England and Wales
Painting usually forms part of a dilapidations claim only when the lease’s decorating covenant requires it or when repainting is the accepted remedy for a genuine defect. The lease wording, the Dilapidations Protocol and RICS guidance control the outcome, not the landlord’s initial schedule. Painting alone never cures rot, damp or failing render, and the timetable benchmarked at about two months and Section 18(1) limits shape what a landlord can actually recover.
TL;DR:
Painting claims are only valid if they address genuine defects and do not simply involve repainting over underlying issues like rot or damp.
The Dilapidations Protocol sets strict deadlines and procedures, requiring surveyor endorsement and proper documentation to prevent disputes.
Landlords can only recover the lower of the cost of repairs or the actual loss in property value caused by breaches, with phased works and expert evidence influencing outcomes.
A tenant’s response should include photographic evidence, maintenance records, and independent quotations, especially when contested items involve superficial or inflated claims.
Properly documented painting work, including scope, photographs, and certificates, helps prevent inflated claims, better supports negotiations, and aligns with lease-specific obligations.
Table of Contents
What are dilapidations, and how do schedules and quantified demands work?
When is painting redecoration and when is it evidence of a repair?
The Dilapidations Protocol: the steps and deadlines that matter
How is the loss measured: cost of works, diminution and the Section 18(1) cap?
Standard of finish, betterment, and spotting an inflated painting claim
Responding to a schedule: an evidence and procurement checklist
Resolving disputes: surveyor meetings, mediation and when litigation follows
How a professional painter documents compliant painting work
The painting industry’s blind spot in dilapidations disputes
Getting dilapidations painting work done right the first time
What are dilapidations, and how do schedules and quantified demands work?
Dilapidations are breaches of a tenant’s repair, decoration or reinstatement obligations under a lease, usually raised at or near lease end. A schedule of dilapidations lists each alleged breach against the relevant lease clause, while a Quantified Demand attaches a costed claim to that schedule. A Scott schedule is the tabular format used once a dispute narrows, setting the landlord’s item, the tenant’s response and the surveyor’s comments side by side.
Surveyors, not solicitors, usually prepare and endorse these documents, because the Dilapidations Protocol expects a qualified surveyor’s endorsement on the schedule before it carries weight in negotiation or litigation. Endorsement matters because an unsigned or unqualified schedule invites challenge on professional standing alone.
The Protocol sets out what a compliant schedule and demand should contain:
Each item referenced to the specific lease covenant it breaches.
A separation of repair, reinstatement and redecoration categories.
Costed remedies with a clear VAT position stated.
When is painting redecoration and when is it evidence of a repair?
A decorating covenant obliges a tenant to redecorate on a cycle or before lease end, but it does not convert an underlying structural defect into a painting job. If a wall is damp because render has failed, repainting it will not cure the disrepair. The correct remedy is repair of the render, with redecoration following once the fabric is sound.
Landlords sometimes list peeling paint or staining as a decoration item when the actual cause is a repair issue, such as:
Rotten timber behind a painted window frame.
Failing render or pointing allowing water ingress.
A leaking gutter or flat roof causing recurring staining below.
Where the schedule asks only for repainting over an unresolved defect, a tenant’s surveyor can properly challenge it as superficial and demand the landlord specify the repair instead. Painting a symptom rather than fixing its cause leaves both parties exposed: the landlord to a defect that recurs, and the tenant to a repeat claim.
Pro Tip: Photograph any staining, flaking or blistering before redecorating over it. Once painted, the evidence of an underlying defect disappears with it.
The Dilapidations Protocol: the steps and deadlines that matter
The Dilapidations Protocol sets the pace for the whole claim, and missing its milestones weakens either side’s negotiating position.
The landlord should issue a Schedule of Dilapidations, generally within a reasonable time and commonly benchmarked at a reasonable time, typically within two months after lease termination.
A Quantified Demand follows or accompanies the schedule, breaking down each cost, stating the VAT treatment and substantiating the figures with quotations or valuations.
The tenant is generally expected to respond within a reasonable time frame of around two months, addressing each item and stating whether it is accepted, disputed or requires further information.
The Protocol encourages a meeting between the parties’ surveyors before proceedings, aimed at narrowing the issues on a Scott schedule.
Following these steps does not guarantee agreement, but a party who ignores them risks costs sanctions if the matter reaches court, since the Protocol is designed to keep negotiation, not litigation, as the default route.
How is the loss measured: cost of works, diminution and the Section 18(1) cap?
Landlords can claim the cost of putting the property into the condition the lease required, but that figure is capped by Section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, which limits recovery to the diminution in the value of the landlord’s reversion caused by the breaches. RICS guidance describes damages as commonly the lower of cost of works and diminution valuation, meaning a landlord cannot recover more than the property has actually lost in value because of the disrepair.
Section 18(1) works in two limbs:
The cap itself, restricting damages to the diminution figure where that is lower than the cost of remedial works.
The supersession defence, which prevents recovery where the landlord intended to redevelop or substantially alter the premises regardless of the tenant’s breaches, since the works would have happened anyway.
Recent case commentary on Peachside Ltd v Lee and Keung shows courts scrutinising whether a landlord’s phased works programme was a genuine, independent decision or a device to defeat the supersession defence. Expert evidence on diminution is decisive in these disputes.
A landlord’s recovery is capped by whichever is lower: the cost of the repair works, or the actual fall in the value of the reversion caused by the tenant’s breach. This single principle, drawn from RICS guidance, explains why many dilapidations claims settle well below the headline figure in the original schedule.
Standard of finish, betterment, and spotting an inflated painting claim
The lease’s decorating covenant usually sets the standard of finish by reference to the condition at the start of the term or to a “good and workmanlike manner” test, not to a brand-new specification. A tenant is not obliged to hand back a better-finished property than the one they took on.
Betterment claims, where a landlord tries to charge the tenant for an upgrade rather than a like-for-like repair or repaint, are disallowed under the ordinary measure of damages. Common examples include specifying a premium paint system where standard trade paint would meet the lease standard, or demanding full redecoration of areas untouched by the alleged breach.
Ask for the specification behind any painting cost, not just a lump sum.
Compare the number of coats and paint grade specified against what the original fit-out actually used.
Query any item that extends beyond the areas identified as defective in the schedule.
RICS journal guidance advises against treating a landlord’s first schedule as an incontestable bill, since disputes commonly arise from overspecified or unnecessary items rather than genuine disrepair. A second opinion from a chartered surveyor, or a comparison against local exterior painting cost benchmarks, quickly exposes an inflated quote.
Responding to a schedule: an evidence and procurement checklist
A tenant who receives a schedule or Quantified Demand has a limited window to build a defensible response, and delay narrows the options.
Note the date of receipt and calendar the response deadline as set out in the Dilapidations Protocol, generally within a couple of months.
Photograph every disputed item before any works begin, including close-ups of staining, cracking or peeling paint.
Gather maintenance logs, previous contractor invoices and any test certificates covering damp, timber or render.
Compile condition reports or a schedule of condition taken at the start of the lease, if one exists.
Instruct a chartered building surveyor to review the schedule against the lease and separate genuine repair items from decoration.
Obtain independent contractor quotations for the disputed items to test the landlord’s figures.
Pro Tip: Keep every invoice from painting or repair works carried out during the tenancy. A documented maintenance history is often the strongest single piece of evidence against an inflated dilapidations claim.
Resolving disputes: surveyor meetings, mediation and when litigation follows
Most dilapidations disputes are resolved without a trial, and the Protocol expects the parties to try. A surveyor to surveyor meeting, working from a Scott schedule, is the usual forum for narrowing disagreement to a handful of contested items rather than the whole schedule.
Surveyor meetings let both sides test figures item by item and often resolve straightforward disputes without further cost.
Mediation or expert determination suits cases where the parties agree on most facts but disagree on valuation, offering a quicker and cheaper route than court.
Litigation is treated as a last resort, and courts expect parties to have engaged with the Protocol and genuinely attempted settlement before proceedings begin.
A party who refuses reasonable ADR without good reason risks an adverse costs order even if they succeed at trial, since the courts weigh conduct under the Protocol alongside the merits of the underlying claim.
How a professional painter documents compliant painting work
A contractor’s job in a dilapidations context is not just to paint, but to leave a paper trail that stands up in negotiation. Preparatory repairs, airless spraying for large wall or ceiling areas, UPVC spraying for window frames and exterior cleaning to remove staining before assessment are the practical services most often relevant to a schedule.
A properly run job produces a documented scope of works agreed before painting starts, a photographic record before, during and after, and a signed completion certificate confirming what was done and to what standard. That record gives a tenant’s surveyor something concrete to put in front of a landlord, rather than a bare assertion that the work is finished. A warranty on the completed work adds a further point of reassurance during negotiation, since it shows the works were carried out to a standard intended to last, not simply to pass a final inspection.
How lease terms shape who pays for painting
The decorating covenant is the starting point for every painting dispute, and its wording varies enormously between leases. A “keep in good and substantial repair and condition” clause is read differently to one that separately lists redecoration cycles, such as “redecorate internally every five years and externally every three.” Where a lease specifies a cycle, a landlord can claim for a missed redecoration even if the paintwork looks acceptable, because the obligation is procedural, not purely visual.
Full repairing and insuring (FRI) leases place the widest painting and repair burden on the tenant, covering internal and external decoration regardless of the property’s age or condition at the start of the term. Internal repairing and insuring (IRI) leases typically confine the tenant’s painting obligation to the interior, leaving external redecoration with the landlord or a service charge arrangement.
Schedules of condition, attached at the start of a lease, can cap a tenant’s liability to the condition recorded at that date rather than a hypothetical pristine standard. Where no schedule of condition exists, the landlord’s claim defaults to the lease’s general repair and decoration standard, which tends to favour a more demanding interpretation. Break clauses and reinstatement provisions add another layer, since a lease may require removal of tenant alterations and redecoration of any areas disturbed in doing so, separate from ordinary wear and tear. Reading the actual clause, not the lease’s general reputation as “FRI” or “IRI”, is the only reliable way to know what painting work is actually owed.
Painting disputes in practice: what recent cases show
The clearest recent illustration of how painting related dilapidations disputes actually play out is the line of commentary following Peachside Ltd v Lee and Keung, where the central question was not the painting itself but whether the landlord’s redevelopment plans defeated the tenant’s supersession defence. The case turned on expert evidence about diminution in value and on whether the landlord’s phased works programme was a genuine, standalone decision or one driven by the tenant’s breaches.
That pattern recurs in smaller commercial disputes too: a landlord’s schedule lists full redecoration of a unit, the tenant’s surveyor points out that only one wall shows genuine staining from a roof leak, and the claim shrinks once the parties meet with a Scott schedule in hand. Cases rarely turn on whether painting happened at all, they turn on whether the scope claimed matches the defect actually present, and whether the landlord’s own plans for the building make the claimed works unnecessary.
The lesson across these disputes is consistent: independent expert evidence, not the size of the original demand, decides how much a landlord actually recovers for painting related items.
The painting industry’s blind spot in dilapidations disputes
Most guidance on dilapidations treats painting as an afterthought behind structural repair, and that is a mistake. Redecoration items are often the largest line by area in a commercial schedule, and they are also the easiest for a landlord to overspecify because a paint finish is subjective in a way that a cracked lintel is not.
The conventional advice, get a surveyor, follow the Protocol, negotiate, is sound but incomplete. It rarely tells tenants that the quality of the underlying paintwork matters as evidence, not just as a cost line. A poorly prepared, patchy repaint invites a landlord to claim the whole area needs redoing, while a properly documented job with photographs and a completion certificate closes that argument before it starts.
The reader’s real priority should be procurement, not negotiation tactics. Get the painting done properly and documented the first time, whether that is during the tenancy or in response to a schedule, and there is far less for either side to argue about later. Diminution valuations and s18(1) arguments matter, but they are damage control for a dispute that better documented work would often have avoided.
— Angus
Getting dilapidations painting work done right the first time
A schedule of dilapidations only becomes a problem when the underlying painting work cannot be evidenced properly, and that is where we come in. Our commercial painting service in Cornwall and the South West is built around the kind of documented, methodical execution that stands up in a landlord and tenant negotiation, not just a fresh coat of paint.
For large wall or ceiling areas specified in a schedule, our airless spraying gives a consistent, fast finish across full elevations. Where window frames or UPVC are flagged, our UPVC spraying restores them without a full replacement, and our exterior home cleaning removes staining before any repaint so the underlying condition is properly assessed rather than painted over. Get in touch through our commercial painting page for a quote before your response deadline runs out.
Sources
The Dilapidations Protocol sets the procedural rules, timetables and recommended schedule forms that govern how a claim should be run.
RICS guidance on dilapidations explains professional standards for preparing and endorsing schedules, and how cost of works and diminution valuations are applied in practice.
For the practical effect of phased works and expert evidence on Section 18(1), the commentary on Peachside Ltd v Lee and Keung is worth reading in full. Tenants dealing with a tenancy end can also review end of tenancy support such as Cleanny’s end of tenancy cleaning alongside their painting works.
This article is general information, not a substitute for advice from a qualified lawyer. Consult a qualified legal professional about your own circumstances before acting on anything here.
FAQ
Does a tenant have to repaint before handing back a commercial property?
Only if the lease’s decorating covenant requires it, either as a fixed cycle or as part of the general repair standard at lease end. Where painting is required only to remedy a specific defect, such as staining from a leak, the tenant’s obligation is usually limited to that area, not the whole property.
How long do I have to respond to a dilapidations schedule?
The Dilapidations Protocol generally expects a tenant’s response within 56 days of receiving the schedule and Quantified Demand. Missing this deadline weakens a tenant’s negotiating position and can affect how costs are treated if the dispute reaches court.
Can a landlord claim more than the property’s fall in value?
No. Under Section 18(1), damages are capped at the lower of the cost of the repair works and the diminution in the value of the landlord’s reversion caused by the breaches. A landlord with clear plans to redevelop the property regardless of the tenant’s breaches may also be barred from recovering repair costs under the supersession defence.
What is betterment, and why does it matter in a painting claim?
Betterment is where a landlord’s claim asks the tenant to pay for an upgrade rather than a like-for-like repair or repaint, such as a premium paint specification where standard trade paint would meet the lease standard. Betterment items are disallowed under the ordinary measure of damages, so a tenant’s surveyor should query any specification that exceeds the original fit-out.
Should I hire a specialist contractor for dilapidations painting work?
A contractor experienced in commercial painting can prepare a documented scope of works, photographic record and completion certificate that supports negotiation with a landlord’s surveyor. This kind of paper trail is particularly useful where a schedule alleges a defect that has already been remedied during the tenancy.
Recommended
Comments