“the service charge referred to in Clause 3 and the Lessor’s obligations to repair shall include any improvements which may be carried out by the Lessor (in its absolute discretion) for the purposes of good estate management.”
“1. To maintain in good and substantial repair and condition (and whenever reasonably necessary rebuild reinstate renew and replace all worn or damaged parts) the following:- (1) The main structure of the Building including the foundations all exterior and all party walls and structures and all walls dividing the Flats from the common halls staircases landings steps and passages in the Building and the walls bounding the same window frames and all electrical and other fittings in the building (but excluding the internal plaster the window glass and electrical and other fittings inside any individual Flat for which the lessee thereof is responsible under any provisions in his Lease 3 corresponding to Clause 4 of the Seventh Schedule) and all doors therein save such doors as give access to individual Flats and including all roofs and chimneys and every part of the Building above the level of the top- floor ceilings.”
“Given that the cladding required urgent replacement, we are satisfied on all the evidence that it was reasonable and sensible to replace the windows at the same time for a number of reasons. In the first place, it is clear that there would be practical problems in replacing the cladding and the windows separately. These could no doubt be overcome, but at additional future cost. In the second place, a quarter of the sub- frames, (though, on the evidence, none or virtually none of the windows themselves), had failed and required replacement. To replace a quarter of the sub-frames would, we are satisfied, have been a costly procedure, requiring scaffolding. In the third place, it is accepted by Mr Lawton and by the tribunal that the double-glazed units which are being installed are virtually maintenance free and therefore will offer significant savings in future maintenance costs. They also offer better thermal and sound insulation and these are also relevant considerations. They are what a significant number of the residents want and, we are satisfied, what nearly all would want if they could afford them.”
“We are satisfied that the replacement of the cladding was a repair, because the old cladding had reached, and, indeed, gone beyond its expected lifespan and half of it was already out of repair. The fact that the new cladding is a better product than the old does not prevent the replacement from amounting to a repair. We are equally satisfied that the replacement of the windows with double-glazed units was, in the circumstances of this case, an improvement because almost all the evidence shows that the original Crittall windows were not out of repair. It is true that, in their Prioritisation Report, Dearle & Henderson spoke of ‘buckling of metal frames’ (see paragraph 8 above), but the oral evidence from both parties suggests that the windows have performed well and that very few had buckled and none had corroded. A significant proportion of the timber sub-frames were out of repair, but they could have been repaired, although this would have been expensive. Had the windows 4 themselves failed, then their replacement would probably have amounted to a repair, although a repair which contained a significant element of betterment. Since they had not failed, and their frames were capable of repair, then we consider their replacement to be an improvement, although, as we have held, a reasonable one.”