Section 11: the obligation you cannot contract out of
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a repairing covenant into virtually every residential tenancy of less than seven years. It requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling, which explicitly includes the roof, and to keep in repair and proper working order the installations for water, gas, electricity and sanitation.
Two features of section 11 catch landlords out. The first is that it cannot be contracted out of. A tenancy agreement clause making the tenant responsible for the roof is void as against section 11, and inserting one achieves nothing except making the landlord look like they were trying it on if the matter reaches court.
The second is that the obligation is triggered by notice, not by the defect. A landlord is not liable for disrepair they did not know about and could not reasonably have discovered, but they become liable once notified and given a reasonable time to act. That is why the date a tenant reports a leak matters more than almost anything else in a disrepair claim, and why we date-stamp every report and attendance.
What counts as a reasonable time
Section 11 does not specify timescales. Reasonableness is judged against the severity of the defect and its effect on the tenant. Active water ingress into a habitable room is at the urgent end and should be attended within days, not weeks. A slipped tile with no ingress is not urgent, though it should still be programmed rather than ignored.
In practice the courts look at the whole picture: how quickly the landlord responded to the report, whether the response was proportionate, whether access was offered and refused, and whether the landlord kept the tenant informed. A landlord who attended within 48 hours, made safe, and scheduled the permanent repair for three weeks later is in a far stronger position than one who did the work in a fortnight but never communicated.
Our practice on Maidstone landlord instructions is to attend active ingress the same day where possible, make safe, and issue a written report the same week. That report is the evidence of prompt response, and it costs nothing extra.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018
This Act amended the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to require that a rented property is fit for human habitation at the start of and throughout the tenancy. Its practical significance is procedural rather than substantive: it gives the tenant a direct right of action in the county court without waiting for the local authority to take enforcement steps.
Fitness is assessed against the hazards in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, and serious damp and mould is squarely within scope. Where roof disrepair has caused damp that makes a room unusable or is affecting health, a tenant can bring a claim seeking works, damages and costs.
The Act does not create a duty to improve. A property built to the standards of its era and maintained in repair is not unfit merely because it is cold or old. What it does mean is that a landlord who leaves a known roof leak untreated has an exposure that no longer depends on the council prioritising the case.
Awaab's Law: what actually applies to private landlords
Awaab's Law is the working name for the regime under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) Regulations 2025, in force since 27 October 2025. It imposes binding statutory deadlines for investigating and remedying damp, mould and emergency hazards.
It applies to registered providers of social housing. It does not currently apply to private landlords. The Renters' Rights Act 2025 contains the power to extend the same duties to the private rented sector, scheduled as Phase 3 of the Act's implementation roadmap, and the government has said it will consult on the detail before doing so. No commencement date has been confirmed.
This distinction matters because a good deal of landlord-facing content states or implies that private landlords are already bound by Awaab timescales. They are not, yet. What is worth doing now is adopting the discipline in advance: investigate damp reports quickly, record what you found, and fix the source rather than the symptom. When the extension does arrive, landlords already working that way will absorb it without changing anything.
Where roof disrepair becomes a damp claim in Maidstone
The Maidstone rental stock generates a predictable set of roof-sourced damp problems. In the Victorian terraces of Fant and Tovil, converted to flats and HMOs in large numbers, failed lead soakers and valley linings put water into party walls where it surfaces one or two rooms away from the entry point.
On the post-war estate housing across Shepway and Park Wood, blocked or overflowing guttering saturates the outer leaf of cavity walls until water bridges to the inner leaf. Tenants report it as rising damp or condensation; it is neither.
In converted lofts and top-floor flats anywhere in the borough, insulation pushed into the eaves during a grant-funded upgrade blocks the ventilation path and turns the roof void into a condensation trap. That presents as black mould in the rooms below and is very frequently misattributed to tenant lifestyle when it is a building defect the landlord owns.
Documentation: what actually defends a claim
Disrepair claims are decided on records. The pattern in defended cases is consistent — the landlord usually did carry out repairs, but cannot evidence when they were notified, when they attended, or what they found.
Three documents carry the weight. A dated inspection record with photographs of the defect as found. A statement of cause rather than symptom, because claims frequently turn on whether the landlord addressed the underlying problem or repeatedly painted over it. And a completion record showing what was done and when.
We produce all three on every landlord instruction across Maidstone at no additional cost. Where we attend and find no defect, we document that too — a report concluding the roof is sound and the damp is occupational condensation is equally useful evidence, and it is a great deal cheaper than a contested claim.
Access, notice and refusals
The statutory position is that a landlord must give at least 24 hours written notice before entering and enter at a reasonable time, except in a genuine emergency. Repairing obligations do not override that, which creates the practical problem every landlord knows: you are liable for a defect you cannot get in to fix.
The answer is evidence of attempts. We contact tenants directly, offer time windows rather than all-day slots, confirm the day before, and record every attempt with dates and times. Where access is repeatedly refused or missed, that record is what demonstrates the landlord responded, and it materially changes the position if disrepair is later alleged.
For HMOs and shared houses in the Fant and town centre areas, where nobody is home during the day, we schedule around that rather than expecting the landlord to solve it.
Repairs versus improvements, and why it matters twice
The distinction between a repair and an improvement matters in two separate places, and landlords frequently conflate them. Under section 11 the obligation is to repair, not to improve. A landlord must restore the roof to the condition it was in, not upgrade it to modern standards. A Victorian roof with a 1960s concrete tile covering must be kept in repair; it does not have to become a slate roof because slate would perform better.
The same distinction resurfaces for tax. Work that restores the property to its previous condition is normally a revenue expense set against rental income in the year incurred. Work that materially improves the property beyond its original condition may be capital expenditure relieved against capital gains on sale. A like-for-like re-roof is often still a repair; upgrading from concrete to natural slate may not be.
The line is a question of fact and degree and turns on the detail of the specific job. We itemise invoices clearly enough for an accountant to make the call, and we are roofers rather than tax advisers — confirm the treatment with yours before you file.
Local authority enforcement and the HHSRS
Alongside the tenant's private law remedies, Maidstone Borough Council has enforcement powers under the Housing Act 2004 using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. An environmental health officer assesses hazards in the property and can serve an improvement notice requiring works within a specified period.
Damp and mould growth is Category 1 hazard territory where it is severe, and excess cold — which roof disrepair and failed insulation both contribute to — is among the most commonly assessed hazards nationally. A Category 1 hazard triggers a duty on the authority to take enforcement action rather than a discretion.
For landlords the practical point is that council enforcement and a tenant claim are not alternatives. Both can run, and an improvement notice on the file is evidence in the tenant's claim. Responding properly to the first report is what avoids both.
HMOs and licensing in Maidstone
Where a Maidstone property is a licensable HMO, roof condition intersects with licence conditions. Licences typically require the property to be maintained in repair and free of Category 1 hazards, and a licensing officer inspecting a property with active water ingress has a straightforward finding.
The HMO stock in Maidstone concentrates in the Victorian terraces of Fant, Tovil and the streets around the town centre — the same stock with the oldest lead work and the highest incidence of nail sickness. Landlords operating in that segment carry a higher baseline roof risk than those on post-war estate housing, and it is worth budgeting accordingly.
Breach of licence conditions is a separate exposure from disrepair, with its own penalty regime, and it does not require a tenant to bring a claim.
Key FactSection 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a repairing covenant covering the structure and exterior, including the roof, into residential tenancies of less than seven years, and it cannot be excluded by agreement. Liability is triggered by notice of the defect, not by its existence.
Last updated: August 2026