Dilapidations at the end of a lease

A terminal dilapidations claim concerns alleged breaches relating to a commercial property's physical state at the end of a tenancy. The England and Wales protocol expects a structured exchange of the claim and response rather than an unexplained repair total. ^[1]

Match each item to an obligation

Collect the lease, condition schedule, licences for alterations and any reinstatement notices. Ask the surveyor to identify the alleged breach, proposed work and cost for each item. Separate disrepair from decoration, reinstatement and work the landlord would undertake for other reasons.

Preserve exit photographs, contractor quotations and evidence of works already completed. A schedule should be assessed against the actual premises and contractual obligations.

Examine the claimed loss

The cost of a proposed work item is not automatically the recoverable damages figure. Explain the landlord's subsequent works, redevelopment or reletting plans where known, and obtain advice on their significance.

Repair wording and Alteration consent provide essential context. Use a line-by-line response to identify admitted items, disputed liability and disputed amounts. Keep settlement discussions distinct from the evidence record so the parties can narrow the real disagreement.

Establish the property condition at the relevant endpoint Collect photographs, inspection notes and handover records showing the premises when the tenancy ended. Identify when each image was taken and whether work occurred between inspection and departure. A contractor's later photograph may show a changed condition rather than the state for which the tenant is said to be responsible. Give the surveyor the original schedule of condition and the history of repairs and alterations. This allows the technical assessment to compare the relevant evidence rather than infer the entire occupation history from the landlord's current schedule.

Include licences, specifications and reinstatement notices for tenant works. Identify equipment removed, installations left behind and any agreement about their treatment. If the landlord said something could remain, preserve the exact correspondence and ask the solicitor about its effect. An assumption made during a friendly handover can differ from the legal position recorded in the lease. The surveyor and solicitor need a coordinated file so they can distinguish physical condition from the separate question of what the tenant was actually obliged to repair, decorate or remove. ## Respond to each allegation on its own basis For every item, identify the alleged breach, location, proposed remedy and amount. State whether the issue concerns liability, the need for work, the specification or the price. The Dilapidations Protocol expects a structured schedule and a sufficiently detailed response to explain the tenant's position. ^[1] A blanket denial gives little assistance where some items may be justified and others not. Equally, accepting that a surface is damaged does not necessarily mean accepting the landlord's proposed replacement specification or every associated cost.

Use comparable information when questioning cost. A quotation for localised repair is not directly comparable with a full replacement unless the adviser has assessed which remedy is appropriate. Identify duplicated preliminaries, overlapping work or areas outside the relevant obligation where the evidence supports the point. If you have already carried out work, provide the specification and completion evidence rather than only the amount paid. The question is whether the relevant obligation was met, not whether the tenant spent a substantial sum on refurbishment before leaving. ## Examine the difference between works cost and loss The protocol states that the quantified demand should reflect the landlord's likely loss, which is not necessarily identical to the cost of remedial works. ^[1] Ask the advisers to assess the significance of the landlord's actual or intended works and reletting plans. If an item will be replaced as part of a wider redevelopment, identify the evidence and the particular allegation affected. Do not assume that any future refurbishment defeats the whole claim; the relationship between the alleged breach, proposed work and loss requires item-specific analysis.

Review additional heads of loss separately, such as claimed lost rent, professional fees or other consequential amounts. Ask for the legal basis and supporting calculation, including the period and assumptions used. Where valuation evidence is required, obtain it from an appropriately qualified person rather than present an unsupported assertion that the property has suffered no reduction in value. Keep factual evidence about the building distinct from expert conclusions. This helps the parties see whether disagreement concerns what happened, the contractual obligation or the financial effect attributed to it. ## Use the protocol to narrow the remaining disagreement Record when the schedule and quantified demand arrived and ask the adviser to establish the appropriate response timetable. The protocol describes usual periods within a reasonable process, rather than making every procedural variation automatically fatal to a claim. ^[1] If information is missing, request it promptly and explain why it is needed for the response. Keep working towards an informed exchange instead of assuming that a technical criticism of the landlord's paperwork removes the need to consider the substantive allegations and preserve the relevant evidence.

Prepare for discussions with an itemised position and authority to explore a realistic settlement. Ask how any agreement will identify the claims resolved, payment timing and treatment of outstanding matters such as service charges or deposits. Settlement correspondence should be managed with advice about its legal status. If no agreement is reached, review what issues remain and what further evidence or procedural step is proportionate. The useful outcome of the pre-action work is a narrower, evidenced dispute, allowing litigation decisions to be made on the remaining questions rather than an unexplained total.