England and Wales. Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 s.18(1) and the pre-action position
Dilapidation quote: what it has to specify to be worth anything
A dilapidation quote is not a builder's price. It is a document that will be read by the other side's surveyor, line by line, against a schedule and against a statutory cap, and a quote that reads like a refurbishment estimate is worth very little in that conversation. Section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 caps damages for breach of a repairing covenant at the amount by which the reversion is diminished in value, which is why a total on its own persuades nobody. This tells you what a usable quote sets out, who should produce it, and what happens to it next.
What a usable dilapidation quote sets out, and what each part is for, 2026
Last updated
A dilapidations quote is read as evidence rather than as a price, by somebody whose job is to reduce it. This is what a quote has to contain to survive that reading, and what happens to each part when it does not.
The statutory cap is quoted from section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 on legislation.gov.uk, read on 15 August 2026, which limits damages for breach of a covenant to repair to the amount by which the value of the reversion is diminished owing to the breach. The pre-action expectations follow the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols published on justice.gov.uk. Everything in the requirements column is a description of what a document has to contain in order to be tested against a schedule item by item, which follows from how these claims are argued rather than from any rule prescribing a format. No price, rate or square foot figure appears anywhere in this table. Dilapidations costs are specific to a building, a lease and a schedule; no authority publishes rates; and a range invented here would be quoted back in a negotiation as though it meant something, which is the specific harm this estate exists to avoid. This is not legal advice.
| Element | What it must show | What it is for | What happens without it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Item by item pricing, keyed to the schedule | Every priced line cross-referenced to the schedule item it answers, in the schedule's own numbering | Allowing the other side's surveyor to agree or dispute each item separately, which is how a claim actually narrows | The whole quote is negotiated as one number, which advantages whoever is more comfortable with a stand-off |
| Scope stated per item | Exactly what is included in each price: materials, labour, access, making good, disposal | Distinguishing repair from improvement, which is the single most common dispute in a schedule | Items are challenged as betterment, and an unspecified line is the easiest kind to challenge |
| Repair against improvement, marked | Where the specification exceeds a like for like repair, said so, with the reason | Pre-empting the betterment argument rather than losing it later | Credibility damage that spreads to the items that were correctly priced |
| Reinstatement of alterations, separated | Alterations reinstatement priced separately from disrepair, and cross-referenced to the licence to alter | Reinstatement obligations turn on the licence, not on the repairing covenant, and are frequently the largest single item | The biggest number in the claim rests on the wrong document, and a licence that waived reinstatement is missed entirely |
| Preliminaries, fees and VAT, shown separately | Site preliminaries, professional fees and VAT broken out rather than absorbed into rates | These are argued on a different basis from the works and are often recoverable differently | The total looks inflated, and the arguable parts cannot be separated from the agreed parts |
| Loss of rent, if claimed | The period claimed, and the basis for that period | It is a separate head of loss with its own evidence, not an uplift on the works | A round number for a plausible period, which is the head most often reduced |
| The section 18 position, acknowledged | That the works total is not the claim, because damages cannot exceed the diminution in the value of the reversion | Section 18(1) caps the recovery whatever the works cost, so a quote presented as the claim overstates it | A negotiation anchored to a number the statute does not support, which unravels the moment a valuer is instructed |
| The date and the surveyor's basis | When the property was inspected, what was accessible, and what was assumed rather than seen | Every quote contains assumptions, and stating them is what makes the rest of it credible | One discovered assumption undermines the document, and the other side will look for it |
- Section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 caps damages for breach of a covenant to repair at the amount by which the value of the reversion is diminished owing to the breach.
- That cap means the cost of the works is evidence about the claim rather than the claim itself, which is why a quote presented as a total persuades nobody who knows the law.
- A dilapidation quote is read item by item against a schedule, so pricing that is not keyed to the schedule's own numbering cannot be argued item by item.
- Reinstatement of tenant alterations turns on the licence to alter rather than on the repairing covenant, and is frequently the largest single element of a claim.
- Preliminaries, professional fees and VAT are argued on a different basis from the works and belong in separate lines rather than absorbed into rates.
- Loss of rent is a separate head of loss requiring its own evidence for the period claimed, not an uplift applied to the works figure.
- The Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols expects parties to exchange information and narrow the issues before proceedings are issued.
Cite this page
“What a usable dilapidation quote sets out, and what each part is for, 2026”, Dilapidations Quotes, https://dilapidationsquotes.co.uk/ (updated 2026-08-15). The statutory cap is quoted from section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 on legislation.gov.uk, read on 15 August 2026, which limits damages for breach of a covenant to repair to the amount by which the value of the reversion is diminished owing to the breach. The pre-action expectations follow the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols published on justice.gov.uk. Everything in the requirements column is a description of what a document has to contain in order to be tested against a schedule item by item, which follows from how these claims are argued rather than from any rule prescribing a format. No price, rate or square foot figure appears anywhere in this table. Dilapidations costs are specific to a building, a lease and a schedule; no authority publishes rates; and a range invented here would be quoted back in a negotiation as though it meant something, which is the specific harm this estate exists to avoid. This is not legal advice.
Three steps
- Tell us about the job. Two minutes, no account needed.
- We pass your details to relevant local specialists (only the ones you'd expect).
- They contact you directly with quotes; you choose, or walk away.
Dilapidations Quotes is an independent site operated by Ellul Solutions Ltd. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by or connected to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, HM Courts and Tribunals Service or any government body, and it is not a firm of surveyors, valuers or solicitors. Nothing here is legal advice or advice on a particular claim, and dilapidations outcomes turn on the lease, the licences and the landlord's intentions, none of which this site can see. We publish no cost, rate or square foot figure anywhere: no authority publishes them, they are specific to a building and a schedule, and a range invented here would be quoted back in somebody's negotiation as though it meant something. Every statutory statement is quoted from legislation.gov.uk and read on the date shown at the top of this page. We take no commission from any firm and carry no paid placements.
Straight answers
What is a dilapidation quote?
A priced response to a schedule of dilapidations, setting out what the works in the schedule would cost. It is read as evidence in a negotiation rather than as a price for building work, which is why structure matters more than the total: priced item by item against the schedule's own numbering, with the scope of each item stated, tenant alterations separated from disrepair, and preliminaries, fees and VAT shown separately rather than absorbed into rates.
Does the cost of the works decide what I have to pay?
No. Section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 caps damages for breach of a covenant to repair at the amount by which the value of the reversion is diminished owing to the breach. So the works cost is evidence going to the claim rather than the claim itself. That is why two parties can agree what the works cost and remain far apart, and why a landlord presenting a priced schedule as the claim has presented the upper bound of one input.
Why do you not publish dilapidations costs per square foot?
Because they would be quoted back in a negotiation as though they meant something. Dilapidations costs are specific to a building, a lease, a schedule and a landlord's intentions, no authority publishes rates, and a range invented for a website would anchor whichever side found it first. The useful published information is what a quote has to contain to survive being tested, and what the statutory cap does to the total, both of which are on this page.
Should I get a surveyor, a valuer or a contractor?
They answer three different questions. A building surveyor prepares or responds to the schedule and prices the works, which is the first instruction on either side. A valuer answers the section 18 question of what the disrepair does to the value of the landlord's reversion, which caps the damages. A contractor prices and carries out actual works, which is useful evidence and is not a schedule response, because a contractor does not assess whether an item is a breach.
Are tenant alterations part of a dilapidations claim?
Reinstatement of alterations is frequently the largest single element of a claim, and it arises under the licence to alter rather than under the repairing covenant. That is why it belongs in its own section of any quote, cross-referenced to the licence. It is also where tenants most often find an answer: a licence that waived reinstatement, or that recorded works as becoming landlord's fixtures, changes the number rather than merely the argument about it.
When should I get dilapidations quotes?
Earlier than most people do. More than a year before lease end, a quote is a budget and the tenant still controls the outcome, because carrying out the works on your own specification with your own contractor remains available. Within a year, it is the decision point between doing the works and negotiating a payment. After a terminal schedule is served, the quote becomes evidence that the other side will test. After expiry, the works option has gone and only the money is left.
What documents matter most in a dilapidations claim?
The lease, every licence to alter, and the schedule of condition if one was attached at the start. Those three decide more of the outcome than any pricing exercise, because they define what was actually covenanted, what was agreed about alterations and what the condition was at the beginning. They are also the documents most likely to have been lost, which is why finding them is the first thing to do rather than the thing that happens when a deadline is already running.