Dilapidations Surveyors’ PI Insurance UK

This page is for building surveyors and valuers whose practice includes dilapidations instructions, whether landlord-side, tenant-side or both. It sits alongside our chartered building surveyors’ PI page and the full surveyors’ PI guide.

Why dilapidations is its own risk

Dilapidations claims concern the state of commercial property at lease end: whether the tenant has complied with its repairing, decorating and reinstatement covenants, and what the landlord is entitled to as a result. The surveyor sits at the centre of that dispute — preparing or responding to the schedule, quantifying the remedy, and usually advising on negotiation and settlement. It is adversarial work by nature: there is an opposing party, an opposing surveyor, and a structured process with rules about how claims must be conducted. That combination — contested facts, money turning on professional opinion, and procedure that penalises missteps — is what gives dilapidations work its particular PI profile.

Two features of the legal landscape matter for understanding the exposure — described here generically, because their application in any given case is a matter for legal advice.

The statutory cap on damages. Section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 can cap a landlord’s damages for disrepair by reference to the diminution in the value of the landlord’s reversion — broadly, the amount by which the disrepair actually reduces the value of the landlord’s interest. A claim built on the cost of works can therefore be cut back if the effect on the value of the reversion is smaller. That makes the diminution valuation a pivotal, and contestable, piece of professional work in many claims.

The Dilapidations Protocol. The pre-action protocol for dilapidations claims governs how terminal dilapidations claims for commercial property should be conducted before proceedings: the exchange of the schedule and quantified demand, the response, and the timetable for each. It requires schedules to be endorsed by the surveyor confirming, in substance, that the works identified are reasonably required and the costings reasonable. That endorsement puts the surveyor’s professional name on the document at the heart of the dispute — and an endorsement that cannot be stood behind is both a negotiating weakness for the client and a professional exposure for the surveyor.

Where negligence claims come from

Overstated schedules. A landlord-side schedule that claims works beyond what the covenants support, or costings that cannot be justified, can collapse under challenge — and a landlord whose claim settles for far less than advised, after significant fees, may look to the surveyor who endorsed it.

Understated schedules and missed defects. The mirror image: items a competent inspection should have captured but did not, discovered after settlement when nothing more can be recovered. The client’s lost recovery is the measure of the complaint.

Negligent diminution valuations. Because the statutory cap can turn on the diminution figure, a valuation that is wrong in approach or execution can move a claim’s outcome substantially — in either direction, for either party. Valuation work is where the larger severity in dilapidations PI tends to sit, because the sums track property values rather than repair costs.

Negotiation and settlement advice. Most dilapidations claims settle, so advice on what to accept, when to concede and how to run the protocol process is a core part of the service — and advising a client into a settlement that was materially worse than the merits supported is an actionable complaint like any other. Procedural failings, such as mishandling the protocol timetable, compound the exposure.

To be clear, these are illustrative categories drawn from how this work goes wrong in practice, not descriptions of any actual claim.

What good PI cover looks like for this work

Full disclosure of the activity. Your proposal should describe dilapidations work explicitly — including diminution valuation work if you do it — so the policy plainly covers your real activities. Cover follows the business described; a policy bought on a generic “building surveying” description is an avoidable argument waiting to happen.

A limit sized to the disputes, not the fees. Dilapidations fees are modest relative to the sums in issue, which track the value of the buildings and the works. Size your limit by asking what the worst credible claim from your current instruction list looks like — particularly on the valuation side — rather than working from turnover. Our limit-sizing guide sets out the method.

Defence costs that do not eat the limit. Dilapidations disputes are document-heavy and expert-led, so defending an allegation is expensive long before any liability is established. Whether defence costs sit inside or in addition to your limit materially changes what your cover is worth; know which you have, and price the alternative.

Any-one-claim where you can get it. A practice running many concurrent instructions can face more than one complaint in a policy year. An any-one-claim limit reinstates for each claim; an aggregate limit does not. The difference matters more in adversarial work than almost anywhere else.

Continuity for past instructions. PI is claims-made, and dilapidations complaints often emerge well after settlement, when a fresh letting or sale exposes what a schedule missed. Maintain cover continuously, notify circumstances promptly, and if you retire or close the practice, put run-off cover in place so the policy is still there when a historic instruction resurfaces.

How Apex places it

We present dilapidations practices to insurers properly: the split of landlord and tenant work, whether diminution valuations are done in-house, the profile of buildings and instructions, and the practice’s protocol experience. A well-presented risk gets better terms and — more importantly — a policy that actually matches the work. If your practice also takes party wall appointments, that work has its own considerations, covered on our party wall surveyors’ PI page.

Frequently asked questions

Does my building surveyor PI already cover dilapidations work?

Often yes — if the activity was disclosed and falls within the business description on your policy. The risk is silence: if your proposal never mentioned dilapidations, or you have since added diminution valuation work, the safest course is to have the description updated. Cover disputes about undisclosed activities are exactly the argument you do not want mid-claim.

Does endorsing a schedule under the Dilapidations Protocol increase my personal exposure?

The endorsement puts your professional confirmation on the schedule — that the works are reasonably required and the costings reasonable — so it is a statement you must be able to stand behind, and one an opponent will test. It is not a reason to avoid the work; it is a reason to inspect thoroughly, cost defensibly, keep your working papers, and carry PI cover that plainly extends to the whole of your dilapidations practice.

I act mostly for tenants. Is my exposure lower?

Different, rather than reliably lower. Tenant-side surveyors face complaints about conceding items a proper analysis would have resisted, missing the significance of the statutory cap on damages, or advising settlement at figures the merits did not support. Both sides of a dilapidations dispute are giving advice that money turns on — which is precisely what PI insurance exists for.

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN 724952). This article is general information, not advice on your specific circumstances; nothing here is legal advice on any dilapidations claim.