Leasehold Property law. Personally delivered.
Leasehold Property law. Personally delivered.
Whether your landlord must consent to alterations turns on one or two words in the lease. What section 19(2) does, and what it does not.
Reviewed 25 July 2026
The difference between a covenant your landlord must consider properly and one they can refuse for no reason at all is a word or two.
An absolute covenant prohibits the work outright and makes no provision for consent. The landlord need not agree at all, may refuse for any reason or none, and may charge for agreeing.
A qualified covenant prohibits the work without the landlord's consent. A fully qualified covenant says expressly that consent is not to be unreasonably withheld.
Where a lease prohibits improvements without consent, section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 deems the covenant subject to a proviso that consent may not be unreasonably withheld — notwithstanding any express provision to the contrary. A qualified covenant is therefore upgraded to a fully qualified one so far as improvements are concerned.
“Improvement” is judged from the leaseholder's point of view: anything increasing the value or usefulness of the flat to them, even if the landlord considers it makes the building worse. That is a generous test, and most works a leaseholder actually wants to carry out will satisfy it.
It does not touch an absolute covenant. The statutory procedure for carrying out improvements against an absolute prohibition applies only to premises used for a trade or business, so where a flat lease prohibits works outright the prohibition is genuinely absolute and the only route is to persuade the landlord on their terms.
Nor does it give a damages claim. Unlike consent to an assignment, where the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 imposes a duty to decide within a reasonable time and makes a landlord liable in damages, there is no equivalent for alterations. The remedy for an unreasonable refusal is a declaration from the court — and silence, while not a breach of a statutory deadline, is evidence of unreasonableness and achieves nothing.
Section 19(2) expressly preserves the right to require a reasonable sum for any damage to or diminution in the value of the premises, together with reasonable legal and other expenses, and — where the improvement does not add to letting value — an undertaking to reinstate. What it does not permit is a charge simply because consent is worth something to you.
Send us the lease and a description of the works and we will tell you which covenant applies and what your landlord can properly ask for.
This article reflects our understanding of the position on 25 July 2026 and is general information rather than legal advice. The law in this area is changing: take advice on your own circumstances before relying on it.
Tell us what has happened and what you would like to achieve, and we will tell you plainly where you stand, what it is likely to cost and how long it will take.
