In Anchor Hanover Group v Cox [2023] UKUT 14 (LC), the Upper Tribunal has given important guidance on the operation of s.11, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and, in the process, has held that advice published by Shelter and the Citizens Advice Bureau is wrong and should not be followed. Section 11(1), Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a covenant into most residential leases granted for terms of less than seven years (including periodic tenancies) to the effect that the landlord must keep the structure and exterior in repair and keep the installations for the supply of heat and water in repair and proper working order. As originally enacted (and following materially similar provisions in the Housing Act 1961), the repairing covenant only applied to the dwelling itself (see generally Campden Hill Towers v Gardner [1977] 1 QB 823). Following amendments made by the Housing Act 1988, for tenancies granted after 15 January 1989, however, the s.11(1) covenant is extended to cover any part of the building in which the lessor has an estate or interest (ss.11(1A), (1B)). The effect of the amendments is to give tenants of flats certain rights as against their landlord in respect of the condition of the wider building and not just their flat. In general terms (and subject to exceptions, e.g. for damage caused by the tenant – s.11(2)), the landlord may not charge the tenant for the costs of complying with the implied repairing covenants (ss.11(4) and (5)) and any term of a lease to such an effect is void. Mr Cox was the assured tenant of Anchor Hanover Group. It was a term of his tenancy that the landlord would repair the communal lift and he would pay a service charge towards the costs of those repairs. He issued proceedings in the FTT challenging his service charge liability in respect of the lift. He contended that the requirement to pay a service charge in respect of the lift was void, relying on ss.11(4) and (5); the lift was a part of the building in which his landlord had an estate or interest (s.11(1A)) so that the landlord was obliged to repair it at its own expense. The FTT found in his favour. The Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal. A lift was not within the scope of s.11(1). It was not part of the structure or exterior nor was it an installation for the supply of heating or water. The introduction of ss.11(1A) and (1B) was intended to overcome the problems demonstrated by decisions such as Campden Hill, not to expand the scope of s.11 to all parts of a building. It followed that ss.11(4) and (5) were not engaged and the charge was recoverable. Justin Bates acted for Anchor Hanover Group. The judgment is available here.