[2025] UKUT 64 (LC)

Neither the body of the Lease nor the plan attached to it made any reference to the extension. The plan was incorporated into what the FTT called “the 1994 Lease” (i.e. the regrant by operation of law consequential on the 1994 Deed of Variation) but it was incomplete because it omitted the extension. That omission created uncertainty and a “lack of congruity” between the plan and the configuration of the property, the extent of the demise and the repairing obligations of the Management Company.

Further uncertainty was created by the definition of “Reserved Property” in the Second Schedule from which it was unclear whether additions to the building formed part of it or not. Nothing clearly showed whether the roof terrace was part of Flat 5 or was part of the Reserved Property, and “to the uninitiated observer” the terrace appeared to be part of Flat 5.

Separately, it was unclear whether the membrane, decking and artificial grass added to the flat roof were part of the roof, or were chattels, or whether parts of the roof which were not beams or joists were part of the Reserved Property. It was unclear whether these were “additions” to the Reserved Property so as to fall within the Management Company’s repairing obligation. It was not known whether Flat 5 had an easement or licence over the roof, which gave rise to further questions. Nor was it clear what rights of access Flat 1 had to the roof.

Because of this uncertainty an assignee of one of the leases might in future wish to argue about the extent of the demise of Flat 1, and responsibility for repairs to the roof, as the Hancocks had initially done. In summary, the FTT concluded that “The provisions of the Lease relating to repair and maintenance are not readily clear or workable.”