What Evidence Do I Need for a Dilapidations Claim? A Commercial Property Guide

Last updated: 7 May 2026

Quick answer

A dilapidations claim in England and Wales lives or dies on its evidence. You need a properly drawn Schedule of Dilapidations endorsed by a chartered surveyor, contractor quotations and a costed breakdown of remedial works, dated photographic evidence of the property's condition at lease end, the lease itself with every relevant covenant identified, and crucially a section 18(1) valuation showing the diminution in the reversion's value. The Pre-Action Protocol for Dilapidations sets the choreography: a Quantified Demand from the landlord, a Response from the tenant, both supported by surveyor evidence. Without the section 18 valuation evidence, the cost figures alone are not enough — the cap in section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 limits damages to whichever is lower, the cost of the works or the diminution in value. This guide walks through every category of evidence and how to organise it for negotiation, mediation or trial.

---

What a dilapidations claim actually is

A dilapidations claim is a claim by a landlord against a tenant for breach of the tenant's covenants in the lease — typically covenants to repair, redecorate, reinstate alterations and yield up the property in a particular condition. The claim is usually brought after the lease has ended (terminal dilapidations) but can also be brought during the term (interim dilapidations).

The claim is for damages, not specific performance of the covenant — so the question is always: how much money does the tenant owe the landlord because the property was not delivered up in the contracted state? That figure is constrained by statute, common law and a detailed pre-action protocol. Evidence is what turns a complaint into a recoverable sum.

If you are a tenant, the same evidence framework applies in reverse: you need to test the landlord's evidence, marshal your own surveyor, and identify defences — particularly supersession, where the landlord's plans for the property mean the breaches make no real-world difference.

This is a commercial property guide. We are not your solicitors and nothing here replaces advice on your specific facts. What follows is a navigational map of the evidence landscape so you know what to gather, in what order, and why.

The cap that controls everything: section 18(1) LTA 1927

Section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 is the central provision in any dilapidations claim. It does two things, and both matter independently.

The first limb — the cost cap. Damages for breach of a repairing covenant cannot exceed the diminution in the value of the landlord's reversion caused by the breach. So even if the cost of works is £200,000, if the breach has only reduced the reversion by £80,000, the recovery is capped at £80,000. The cost figure becomes a ceiling, not a floor, and the diminution figure overrides it whenever it is lower.

The second limb — the futility cap. No damages are recoverable for breach of a covenant to put or leave premises in repair if the premises would, at or shortly after termination, be pulled down or have such structural alterations made that the repairs would be rendered valueless. This is the statutory home of the supersession argument.

Practically, this means a dilapidations claim is two valuations stitched together: one for cost of works, and one for diminution in value. You must have evidence on both.

The common law starting point — Joyner v Weeks [1891] 2 QB 31 — was that damages equalled cost of works at lease end. Section 18 reformed that by introducing the statutory cap, and the modern position is set by cases like Crewe Services & Investment Corp v Silk [1998] 2 EGLR 1, which we return to below.

The Dilapidations Protocol — the pre-action choreography

The Pre-Action Protocol for Claims for Damages in Relation to the Physical State of Commercial Property at Termination of a Tenancy — the Dilapidations Protocol — governs the steps before any claim is issued. The court expects compliance, and sanctions departures from it through costs.

The Protocol requires:

1. A Schedule of Dilapidations served by the landlord, identifying each alleged breach.
2. A Quantified Demand within a reasonable time of the lease ending, setting out the landlord's monetary claim and how it is calculated.
3. An endorsement from a surveyor confirming that, in the surveyor's opinion, the works are reasonably required to remedy the breaches and the costs claimed are reasonable. This endorsement is not optional — it is a regulatory and protocol requirement.
4. A Response from the tenant within 56 days, also typically endorsed by a surveyor, which goes through the Schedule item by item.
5. Without prejudice negotiations and consideration of alternative dispute resolution.
6. Disclosure of the section 18 valuation before proceedings are issued where it is to be relied upon.

A landlord who issues without protocol compliance, or a tenant who refuses to engage, exposes themselves to costs sanctions. PGF II SA v OMFS Co 1 Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1288 — though not specifically a dilapidations case — confirmed that silence in the face of an ADR offer is itself unreasonable conduct.

Evidence on cost: the Schedule of Dilapidations and what supports it

The Schedule of Dilapidations is the central document. It is a structured list of alleged breaches and is usually presented as a Scott Schedule with columns for the parties' positions.

A workable structure looks like this:

To support the cost figures, you need:

• Contractor quotations — ideally three competitive quotes per significant item, on contractor letterhead, dated, and itemised. A single quote is weak evidence; three independent quotes is robust.
• A costed schedule — the surveyor's own breakdown of rates, hours and materials, often built from published price-book rates (Spons, BCIS) and adjusted for the locality.
• Specifications and drawings where the works are non-trivial.
• Site notes from the surveyor's inspection, with measurements.
• Schedule of Condition if one was attached to the lease — this is the baseline against which dilapidations are measured.
• Licences for alterations which often contain reinstatement obligations.
• The lease itself with repairing, decorating, alteration, reinstatement and yielding-up covenants identified.

Each item in the Schedule must be tied back to a specific covenant. A breach without a covenant is not a breach. A covenant without a breach is not a claim.

Evidence on diminution in value: the section 18 valuation

This is where most poorly-prepared dilapidations claims collapse. The cost evidence may be immaculate, but if the landlord cannot show diminution in the reversion, the cost evidence is capped to nothing.

The section 18 valuation is a comparison between two values at the termination date:

• Value A — the value of the reversion in its actual condition at lease end (i.e. with the breaches).
• Value B — the value of the reversion in the condition it would have been in had the covenants been performed.

The diminution figure is B minus A. That figure is the cap on damages.

Evidence to support a section 18 valuation includes:

• Open market valuation evidence by a chartered surveyor specialising in commercial valuation, compliant with the RICS Professional Statement: Dilapidations in England and Wales (current edition) and the Red Book.
• Comparable transactions — recent lettings or sales of similar properties in similar condition, ideally from the same locality and the same time window.
• Condition reports showing the actual physical state at lease end.
• Marketing evidence — what the landlord has actually marketed the property at, in what condition, and at what asking rents or prices.
• Letting evidence post-end — what rent the property has actually achieved in its as-found condition, and what it would have achieved in good repair.

If the property is in a strong market and re-lets quickly at the same rent regardless of the disrepair, the diminution figure may be small or nil. If the property re-lets only after the landlord carries out the works themselves, the cost may be a reasonable proxy — but it is still the diminution that matters.

Supersession — when the works would have been wasted anyway

Supersession is the tenant's most powerful defence. It engages both limbs of section 18 and is grounded in Latimer v Carney [2006] EWCA Civ 1417.

The argument runs: the landlord's actual intentions for the property are such that the disrepair makes no economic difference. If the landlord is going to gut the property and refit it for a new tenant, the broken HVAC plant and tired decorations are going in the skip regardless. The breaches do not diminish the reversion's value because the works would have been wasted.

To establish or rebut supersession, you need evidence of what the landlord actually intended at the relevant date (lease end and shortly after):

• Marketing instructions to letting agents and the marketing brief.
• Plans, drawings and specifications for any redevelopment or refurbishment.
• Planning applications and consents lodged with the local authority.
• Building contracts and tender documents for works actually instructed.
• Internal board papers, asset management plans, and investment committee minutes.
• Correspondence with prospective tenants about the condition they expected to take.
• The actual works carried out post-termination — invoices, programme, photographs.

This is documentary disclosure territory. Tenants should ask for it early; landlords should expect to give it.

Crewe Services and the landlord's actual intentions

Crewe Services & Investment Corp v Silk [1998] 2 EGLR 1 modernised the application of section 18. The Court of Appeal held that the diminution in value must reflect what the landlord would actually have done — not a hypothetical landlord pursuing the works in question.

If the landlord has no real intention of carrying out the repairs and the market does not require them, the diminution may be limited to the modest impact on capital value or rent achievable. The cost of works as a proxy for diminution is only available where the landlord genuinely intends to carry out the work and the work is reasonable in market terms.

This makes the landlord's actual conduct after lease end powerful evidence. A landlord who claims £200,000 in dilapidations but markets the property "as is" and re-lets it at the same rent with a refurbishment-allowance contribution from the new tenant will struggle to defend the figure.

The dated photographic evidence point — and why it sits at the centre

Photographic evidence is the single most under-prepared category in dilapidations cases. We are flagging it prominently because litigation turns on it again and again.

You need photographs that show:

• The actual condition at lease end — not three months later, not after a contractor has tidied up, not in a different lighting.
• Dates embedded — either in the camera metadata or shown by a date stamp on a site notice or newspaper in shot.
• Geolocated where possible — modern phones embed GPS data.
• A consistent walking route through the property so nothing is missed.
• Reference scale in shots of damage — a ruler, a one-pound coin, a known-size object — for items where extent matters.
• Before-and-after comparators with the Schedule of Condition photographs (if one was attached to the lease).

The handover inspection should ideally be joint — both surveyors present, both photographing, and a signed list of items inspected. If it is not joint, a unilateral inspection still works but must be properly evidenced.

A dilapidations claim with poor photographs is a weak claim. A dilapidations defence with no photographs of the as-handed-back state is a defence at the mercy of the landlord's photographs.

Surveyor evidence and the section 18 valuation

The Protocol's endorsement requirement means a surveyor must sign off the Schedule and Quantified Demand confirming reasonableness. That is the entry-level surveyor input.

For litigation, you will need more:

• A Building Surveyor dealing with the cost of works, the schedule and the technical breach analysis.
• A Valuation Surveyor (often a different individual) dealing with the section 18 diminution valuation. These skills rarely sit in the same person.
• Both must be CPR Part 35 compliant if proceedings are issued — duty to the court overrides duty to the instructing party, statement of truth, declaration as to compliance with the RICS Surveyors Acting as Expert Witnesses Practice Statement.

Whether to instruct single joint experts or party-appointed experts is a tactical question. In moderate-value claims, a single joint expert on diminution can resolve the cap quickly and economically. In larger claims, party-appointed experts with a joint statement narrowing the issues is more common.

The instructing party normally pays their own surveyor's fees in the first instance, with costs following the event at trial.

Loss of rent during works

In limited circumstances, a landlord can recover loss of rent for the period during which the property was untenantable while remedial works were carried out. The evidence required is:

• A programme of works showing the duration genuinely required to remedy the breaches.
• Marketing evidence that the property would have let during that window absent the disrepair.
• Comparable rental evidence to fix the market rent foregone.
• Mitigation evidence that the landlord acted promptly to instruct works and re-let.

Loss of rent is itself a head of damage subject to the section 18 cap when looked at in the round, and it must reflect actual loss rather than a hypothetical one.

Reinstatement of alterations

Many leases require the tenant to reinstate alterations at lease end if the landlord serves notice. Reinstatement is technically a separate breach from a failure to repair, and the section 18 cap does not apply to reinstatement obligations in the same way — though general principles of mitigation and reasonable foreseeability still bite.

Evidence on reinstatement:

• Licences for alterations containing the reinstatement obligation and any conditions on its exercise.
• The landlord's reinstatement notice (where required) and proof of valid service.
• Drawings of the original layout — pre-alteration plans.
• Drawings of the as-altered layout — what is being reinstated from.
• Costings for the reinstatement works — typically harder to evidence than repair items because you are pricing a deconstruction and rebuild.

Interim dilapidations and the 1938 Act

Where the landlord wants to bring a dilapidations claim during the term — not at the end — different rules apply.

The Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938 requires the landlord to obtain the leave of the court before bringing damages or forfeiture proceedings for disrepair where the lease was originally granted for at least seven years and has at least three years left to run. The tenant must be served with a section 146 notice (under the Law of Property Act 1925) and has 28 days to serve a counter-notice claiming the protection of the 1938 Act.

To get leave, the landlord must show one of the statutory grounds — broadly, that immediate remedy is required to prevent substantial diminution in value, to comply with statute, in the interests of an occupier other than the tenant, that the cost of immediate remedy is small compared with later cost, or "any other special circumstances".

Self-help clauses — typically called Jervis v Harris clauses after Jervis v Harris [1996] Ch 195 — allow the landlord to enter, do the works, and recover the cost as a debt rather than damages. The 1938 Act does not bite on debt claims, which is why these clauses are commercially powerful.

Evidence for interim dilapidations is broadly the same as for terminal claims, with added emphasis on the urgency justifying intervention during the term.

Costs, Calderbank offers and Part 36

Dilapidations claims are notorious for disproportionate costs relative to recoveries. Make offers early, make them properly, and document everything.

• Part 36 offers carry automatic costs consequences if not beaten. A claimant who beats their own Part 36 offer at trial recovers indemnity costs, enhanced interest and a 10% uplift on damages (capped). A defendant who makes a Part 36 offer that the claimant fails to beat shifts the costs from a notional date 21 days after the offer.
• Calderbank offers ("without prejudice save as to costs") are flexible alternatives where Part 36 does not fit the situation. They lack the automatic consequences but inform the court's costs discretion.
• Mediation refusals can ground an adverse costs order. Engage with ADR proposals in writing; do not ignore them.
• Protocol non-compliance — both sides — is sanctioned through costs.

The trial bundle for a dilapidations dispute

If the claim reaches trial, the bundle structure is broadly:

• Section A — Pleadings (40 pages): claim form, particulars of claim, defence and any counterclaim, reply, the Scott Schedule.
• Section B — Lease and schedules (30 pages): the lease with covenants highlighted, any Schedule of Condition, licences for alterations, supplemental deeds.
• Section C — Expert evidence (80 pages): claimant's surveyor report, defendant's surveyor report, joint statement narrowing issues, costings appendices.
• Section D — Valuation evidence (30 pages): section 18 diminution evidence, supersession evidence, market evidence and comparables.
• Section E — Photographs and plans (40 pages): condition photographs (claimant and defendant), site plans, schedules of photographs cross-referenced to the Schedule of Dilapidations.

The judge will navigate by the Scott Schedule. Every other document should be cross-referenced back to the Schedule so the judge can move from "Item 12 — broken roof tiles" to the photographs at C12, the cost evidence at D12, and the surveyor reports at B12 in seconds.

Next steps

If you are a landlord preparing a claim:

1. Instruct a building surveyor to inspect promptly at lease end and produce an endorsed Schedule and Quantified Demand within the Protocol timetable.
2. Instruct a valuation surveyor separately to produce the section 18 diminution evidence — do not skip this.
3. Photograph everything, dated, before any works.
4. Disclose your real intentions for the property — supersession will surface either way, and trying to hide it damages credibility.
5. Make a properly considered Part 36 or Calderbank offer early.

If you are a tenant responding to a claim:

1. Instruct your own surveyor immediately to inspect — joint inspection is preferable.
2. Get the lease analysed: every alleged breach must tie to a specific covenant, properly construed.
3. Investigate supersession — what is the landlord actually doing with the property?
4. Respond within 56 days, item by item, with your own endorsed surveyor evidence.
5. Consider the cap — even a fully-admitted Schedule may be worth far less than the cost figure when section 18 is applied.

A dilapidations dispute is a structured exercise in evidence assembly. The party that organises its evidence first, ties every item to a covenant, supports every cost figure with quotes and a costed schedule, and underpins every claim with proper section 18 valuation evidence is the party that controls the negotiation.

BundleCreator can help you organise the documents you'll need into a bundle aligned with the relevant practice direction. We offer a 14-day trial, and templates for commercial property disputes sit ready in your library.