What drives a dilapidations claim
The headline cost on a Quantified Demand is built up from a Schedule of Dilapidations: each alleged breach of the repairing, decorating, reinstatement and statutory covenants is costed and totalled. Size of demise, building type and the scope of reinstatement (yielding back to original layout, removing tenant alterations) are the principal cost drivers.
The Section 18 cap, why the served figure rarely settles
Section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 caps damages for breach of the repairing covenant at the diminution in the value of the reversion caused by the breach. If the landlord is going to demolish, refurbish or change use, the diminution may be nil, regardless of the cost of the works in the schedule. That cap is the single most powerful lever in tenant defence.
Supersession, and the landlord's intentions
Where the landlord intends works that would supersede the disrepair (a strip-out and refit, change of use, demolition), the cost of the tenant's notional remedial works falls away to the extent it is superseded. Establishing the landlord's actual intentions, through marketing evidence, planning applications, refurbishment specifications and direct enquiry, is a routine part of tenant-side defence.
How a Schedule of Condition reduces the figure
Where a properly prepared Schedule of Condition was taken at lease grant, items that were already present are removed from the claim before negotiation begins. On older buildings this can take a five-figure claim down by 30–60% in a single defensive pass.
What CBC does to reduce exposure
We review the Quantified Demand against the lease, the original Schedule of Condition (where one exists), the actual condition at yield-up and the landlord's likely intentions. We then prepare the formal response, supported where appropriate by a Section 18 valuation, and negotiate to settlement under the Pre-Action Protocol, frequently via a Scott schedule.