By Kavita Bharti – Legal Adviser
Updated May 2025
Sprinkler systems are particularly useful for preventing the spread of fire in tall buildings, but are only required by law in new builds and conversions.
Two significant legal cases shed light on what might be expected of landlords who are seeking to retrofit sprinklers or access homes for fire safety works.
London Borough of Wandsworth
Following the fire at Grenfell in 2017, the London Borough of Wandsworth (LBW) took the decision to retrofit sprinklers in blocks of flats of more than 10 storeys within the borough.
They made an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to make sure that they had the authority to carry out and charge for the suggested works in the leasehold properties.
The application was to seek a ruling:
- that they were entitled to enter the leasehold flats without the leaseholder’s consent
- to include the expenses of both fitting and maintaining the sprinkler systems as part of the service charge costs towards which the leaseholders would have to pay
This application affected approximately 2,500 leasehold properties.
In December 2019 the application was struck out by the Tribunal and could not proceed. It was decided that LBW was not entitled to ask for a blanket determination of leaseholder rights. The Tribunal said that if LBW wished to fit the sprinkler systems, they had to consider each block of flats individually, and if necessary make an application to the Tribunal on a block-by-block basis.
As a result, there was no reasonable prospect of LBW being able to show that the service charge costs were recoverable under the leases. Each block was constructed in a different way. The leaseholders pointed out that sprinklers were not necessary for all the blocks, and if the Tribunal made a decision, it would be an abuse of process.
As the application was struck out, the Tribunal did not make a decision on the key points at issue, and these issues still remain unsolved for those wishing to make such improvements.
Oxford City Council v Piechnik
The County Court explored the leaseholder’s right to quiet enjoyment when the landlord insists on access to for fire safety works in the case of Oxford City Council v Piechnik [2020] EWHC 960 (QB).
A lease had been granted under the Right to Buy (RTB), containing provisions allowing for service charges, quiet enjoyment and the landlord’s covenant to maintain the building.
Under the lease, the council was allowed to enter the premises to repair any part of the building, provided it gave notice. The council wanted to carry out major works, which included installing insulation and cladding, putting in a sprinkler system and ventilation units, replacing windows.
There were proceedings before the Tribunal which addressed the question as to whether the service charges for these major works were payable under the terms of the RTB leases. It was held that most of the charges were not recoverable as the leases did not allow for this in relation to improvements.
Dr Piechnik (the leaseholder) refused access to the contractors, so the council applied for an injunction to force Dr Piechnik to provide access. This resulted in an agreement about limited access.
This agreement had, however, been without prejudice to the parties’ respective rights and remedies. After the completion of the works, Dr Piechnik sought (amongst other things) an order for damages for breach of covenant, namely interference of his right of quiet enjoyment.
It was initially held that, because a local authority could insist on access for these purposes when the flat was let on a secure tenancy, there was an implied right of access in a RTB lease. Their argument was that Schedule 6, Housing Act 1985 included an implied right of entry – as previously found in Lee v Leeds City Council [2002] 1 WLR 1488, CA. The County Court held that the lease entitled the Council to enter the premises for the purpose of carrying out improvement works. Dr Piechnik appealed to the High Court on a number of grounds.
The High Court in allowing the appeal in part,held that a local authority landlord does not have an extended right of entry implied into such leases to carry out works, even for fire safety issues. The Schedule 6 provisions are directed to different rights, namely the rights to the access of light and air to a building or part of a building, not to rights of access.
Take-aways
- Landlords cannot take a blanket approach when looking to carry out works, but should ant to consider their merits according to each building.
- Despite the implied clauses in RTB leases, the landlord does not have an extended right of entry implied into such leases to carry out works, even for fire safety issues.
- There is no ‘one-size fits all’ ruling. In the Wandsworth decision, the key issues were not decided upon, and the decision in Piechnik is specific to RTB leases. It does not apply to private freeholders or housing association landlords.
More information you might find useful