Philip Antino Prevents Planning Application detrimental to Neighbours Property

Thorley Hill:  Planning Application: East Herts Council accept Philip Antino’s submissions and REFUSE  the application

The owners of No. 1a Thorley Hill, Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire, CM23 3ND submitted an application to East Herts Council for front and rear extensions under planning application 3/18/0899/HH.

This incorporated a two storey front extension and a single rear extension.  The owners of No. 1 Thorley Hill were concerned that this would have a detrimental effect on their property and their quiet enjoyment of their house.  They instructed Mr Philip Antino to carry out a detailed assessment of the local authority planning and national planning policy framework policies, the site, the proposed works and to provide advice.

Mr Antino’s findings were such that he believed that there were justified grounds to register objections with East Herts Council opposing the proposed development, particularly the double storey front extension which was within a matter of several metres of No. 1 Thorley Hill.

It was further of notable concern to Mr Antino that No. 1a Thorley Hill had already been extended substantively to the side with double storey extensions and to the rear, increasing the original footprint by some 350%.

Upon consideration of the relevant factors and the East Herts local plan 2007 policies EMV1, EMV5 and EMV6 together with the national planning policy framework submissions were made to the East Herts Council in the following terms.

The proposed front extension by reason of its scale, sighting and design would cause unacceptable harm to the amenity use of No. 1 Thorley Hill which would result in a significant loss of light and create an overbearing effect for the occupiers of No. 1 Thorley Hill.  The proposed extension, by reason of its scale, sighting and design would cause unacceptable harm to the character and design of the surrounding street scene.  The council took into account the representations made by Mr Antino on behalf of his clients and reached the decision having full regard to those representations, the development plan and all material considerations that the planning application should be refused for terms as clearly set out and submitted by Mr Antino on behalf of his clients.

The Council accepted Mr Antino’s submissions and REFUSED  the application.

 

Posted on June 30, 2018 .

Heshmet Bibizadeh, Janet Bibizadeh & Ashley Bibizadeh sued for Malicious defamation

Philip Antino v Heshmet Bibizadeh’s, Janet Bibizadeh & Ashley Bibizadeh (2017) High Court Queens Bench QBD Claim No. HQ17M02658

 The Bibizadeh’s have made false, malicious and defamatory libellous written statements.  In order to protect his position Philip Antino issued a claim in the High Court (QBD) on the 26th July 2017.

The defendants had been asked to withdraw their false, malicious, defamatory and libellous statements to apologise but have chosen not to do so. 

The false and malicious allegations made by the Bibizadeh’s are vehemently refuted by Mr Antino and will be defended both in the RICS regulatory procedures and in the High Court.

On the 19th October 2015 Mr Heshmet Bibizadeh having been seen by Mr Antino to be breaching an undertaking not to do notifiable works together with his son Mr Ashley Bibizadeh threatened Mr Antino with physical violence.  When Mr Antino called the police (which is recorded on a video tape) the Bibizadeh’s ran away.

The police attended spoke to the Bibizadeh’s and they made no allegations whatsoever of Mr Antino’s behaviour which they now maliciously assert and allege occurred at that time to the police.

The police officer asked Mr Antino if he wanted to pursue the offence but decided not to (a decision he now fully regrets) Mr Antino was not prepared to be exposed to any further abuse and on the 17th December 2015 following a court order for access attended the Bibizadeh’s property with police officers in attendance.

The Bibizadeh’s having two police officers in their presence again made no reference to the malicious and false allegations that they now allege occurred on the 19th October 2015.  In fact there was no allegations made until January 2016 and those allegations do not reflect the allegations that the Bibizadeh’s have now made to the RICS.

Mr Antino fully intends to pursue the Bibizadeh’s through the courts to seek the justice and protect his name and reputation.

It is unacceptable that any person irrespective of whether they have a professional status or not are exposed to such vicious, and vile abuse when undertaking their contractual/statutory obligations.

It is clear that there is a growing tendency amongst those owners caught breaking the law to become aggressive, abusive and in some instances violent.

 

 

Posted on April 12, 2018 .

Lydia McLeod & Bridget Makepeace of RICS

Lydia McLeod (“LM”) and Bridget Makepeace (“BM”) of RICS

Mr Merricks CBE Remit (in abbreviated terms)

It is important to emphasise that my remit covers only the standard of service provided by RICS. I judge standards of service against ordinary standards of customer service that can reasonably be expected of professional bodies: these include promptness and timeliness, consistency, clarity of communication, courtesy and respect; and adherence to proper procedures.

Therefore in this case I have confined myself to the question of whether level of service provided to Mr Antino was reasonable.

I (Mr Merricks) will assess the service provided to Mr Antino in relation to promptness and timeliness, consistency, clarity of communication, courtesy and respect; and adherence to proper procedures.

Promptness and timeliness

LM handled the complaint in a timely fashion, responding promptly to PA’s correspondence – until 28 June when she provided an update to PA and promised him further updates. There was then a significant gap until 26 July when PA felt it reasonable to ask for an update. 

A more serious delay occurred between 10 August (LM’s final contact with PA), and 3 November. During this time there was no contact with PA to update him.

My observations

 I will assess the service provided to Mr Antino in relation to promptness, consistency, clarity of communication, courtesy and respect; and adherence to proper procedures.

Promptness and timeliness

There was a gap in communication between the time of LM’s last email on 4 October and the time on 7 November when BM took up the file and wrote to PA. Otherwise the case proceeded with reasonable promptness of communication.

Consistency and Adherence to proper procedures

As BM identified, LM had not adhered to a proper procedure in failing to gather any evidence to substantiate the allegation that PA had failed to reply to correspondence. This was indeed a substantive failing and BM apologised for it.

I am unaware that LM’s request to PA to keep confidential information provided by Mr and Mrs Critchley was part of any proper procedure.  There is no obligation on a person who is the subject of a complaint to keep confidential information provided to that person in support of allegations made against him or her, and as that is the case, such confidentiality should not be requested. PA protested about it and received no response to his protests. The issue was simply ignored by both BM and CH.

 A person who objects to a request made by RICS during a regulatory investigation is entitled to be told whether and if so on what grounds the original request was justified, or if it was not, why the request was made in the first place. That was also a failing.

My conclusion

 I have identified some service failings in my review of these two linked investigations.

Walter Merricks

5 February 2018

Irony RICS Regulate Professional Standards

RICS did not provide appropriate professional services when seeking to investigate a false and malicious complaint.  If a member acted in such a way, he would be subject to disciplinary proceedings, yet the very people who determine members conduct are not accountable when they fail to achieve professional standards.

Background

In 2017 a Mr and Mrs Critchley made a complaint to the RICS about Philip Antino, alleging that he had not written to their surveyor Mr Marchant, and that Philip Antino had unnecessarily delayed or refused to correspond with Mr Marchant.

For those of you that are familiar with Philip Antino you would know that he is one of the most conscientious and efficient surveyors and always responds to correspondence.

The complaint was passed to Mrs Lydia McLeod of the RICS complaints team, Mrs McLeod did nothing other than write to Mr Antino setting out the complaint and alleging various breaches of the RICS rules.

Mrs McLeod did not ask for any proof or corroborating evidence from Mr and Mrs Critchley.  Mr Antino has never written to, corresponded with, spoken to the Critchley’s and only met their surveyor Mr Marchant on one occasion in May 2017, which lasted 6 minutes with Mr Antino’s client ordering Mr Marchant to leave.  There was an agreement that Mr Marchant would be given access to Mr Antino’s clients property for him to take measurements in relation to an allegation by the Critchley’s that the boundary had been moved by Mr Antino’s clients.

Upon receipt of the complaint Mr Antino immediately wrote to Mrs McLeod (by email) asking her to provide any kind of evidence in support of the allegations raised by the Critchley’s.  In Mr Antino’s view Mrs McLeod had been derelict in exercising her duty of care towards Mr Antino by forgetting or simply not asking the Critchley’s for evidence that supported the allegation.

Undeterred she proceeded to write to Mr Antino in the most strictest terms making all sorts of wild accusations that there were grounds for a disciplinary hearing in breach of RICS rules.

Mr Antino wrote in the strictest terms asking again for evidence and none was provided.  Mrs McLeod was then replaced by Mrs Bridget Makepeace, another member of the RICS regulatory team.  Mrs Makepeace immediately recognised (to her credit) that Mrs McLeod had failed to identify any reasonable grounds to justify opening an investigation into the allegations, and apologised on behalf of Mrs McLeod and then said she was closing the file.

 

Mr Antino was quite aggrieved by this, clearly recognising a breach of his human rights under Article 3 that the RICS were treating him in an inhumane manner.   To write to a professional threatening all sorts of allegations and breaches of rules when there was not one shred of evidence disclosed or even requested by the RICS investigating officer (Lydia McLeod) was tantamount to mental torture.

 

Mrs McLeod’s apology appeared to be the conclusion of the RICS involvement.  Mr Antino made a formal complaint about Mrs McLeod, it was referred to another team member who said quite simply that the service had not been to the standard that Mr Antino was entitled to receive from the RICS and they apologised on behalf of RICS and that was the end of the matter.

Mrs McLeod has not offered an apology during or since.

Mr Antino undeterred wanted the matter referred to another party and it went before Mr Walter Merricks CBE.

Now the irony of this situation is that the RICS regulatory team are there to ensure that members of the RICS demonstrate and comply with the appropriate professional standards, and if they do not, they bring proceedings and issue fines and costs against the member.

When the RICS regulatory team fail to demonstrate the duty of care and/or the appropriate level of service that they are required to provide, especially when purporting to be a regulating body, and wrongly, mischievously and negligently write to members without undertaking the basic checks to establish if there is any evidence to support an allegation made by a member of the public, that they simply walk away from this having given an apology.

The RICS should lead by example, when they make a mistake through negligence or a breach of their own standards then the person that has done that in this case Mrs Lydia McLeod, and as it turns out Mrs Bridget Makepeace as recognised by Mr Merricks should be fined, suspended from work, ordered to pay from their own pocket compensation to the surveyor who they have grievously harmed through their malicious and wrongful communications.

 

 

Posted on March 29, 2018 .

Sean Tompkins CEO of RICS Mistaken about his professional status !!!!!

Sean Tompkins CEO of RICS

Mr Sean Tompkins is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the RICS.  He has a high profile position and from what can be seen from his job description is that he is there to promote the RICS.  The RICS reputation is purportedly founded on honesty, integrity and professionalism.  It therefore came as somewhat of a shock to Mr Antino whilst undertaking research generally about the RICS in preparation of a forthcoming expose on the RICS that he stumbled across the Form 288a appointment of a company director or secretary.

In 2006 Mr Tompkins completed a Form 288a for submission to Companies House to become a Director of St Benedict Homes Ltd.  The form was completed by Mr Tompkins in his own hand and he recorded existing directorships at that time being Director of RICS Business Services Ltd (2002 – to date) being 2006.

There is a requirement that the applicant provides a business description.  This is what caused Mr Antino some alarm and justifiably so because Mr Tompkins had written claimed to be a chartered surveyor.  Mr Tompkins has never been a chartered surveyor and remains at present without any professional standing within the RICS.

As a professional member of the RICS Mr Antino knows that it is wrong for anyone to hold themselves up to be a chartered surveyor, because RICS have by the Royal Charter, absolute control over the use of chartered surveyor.  In much the very same way as someone filling in a form purporting to be a barrister, a doctor, a High Court Judge, a member of RIBA, without having those professional qualifications would lead to serious repercussions by those regulating bodies and justifiably so.

Mr Antino therefore wrote to the RICS advising in the strictest terms that Mr Tompkins had held himself up to be a chartered surveyor.

There was no acknowledgement of the complaint letter until approximately 4 – 5 weeks later when Mr Antino received a response from the RICS legal team.  They thanked Mr Antino for bringing it to their attention, confirmed that they had looked into the matter and advised that this had been determined previously to be an administrative error.  They were therefore closing the file and doing nothing further.

An administrative error, what does that mean?  In the context of this plainly wrongful assertion on a legal document to Companies House, it cannot be an administrative error.  Mr Tompkins filled in a form, he signed the form, and having submitted it to Companies House in anticipation of becoming a Director.

That cannot fall within the definition of an administrative error.  An administrative error is filing the letter in the wrong file, incorrectly posting a letter to someone who should not get the letter, or putting the wrong address on an envelope, and sending the letter to an incorrect address.  That is an administrative error.

This response gives rise to the question of just how many other people are doing the same thing.  Mr Antino can assure you that it is not a rare occurrence.  In 2017 Mr Antino identified a Mr Blake trading as a party wall surveyor has stated on his correspondence, stationery etc. that indeed he was RICS qualified and regulated.  Mr Blake was not.  Mr Antino reported this gentleman to the RICS and they simply got him to remove the designated RICS logos and not to misrepresent himself any further.

Where is the protection that should be offered by the RICS to its members to prevent people wrongly and mischievously using the RICS Royal Charter of chartered surveyor.

Members work very hard to achieve that status and they are quite rightly entitled to have that status protected and not abused, however it is being devalued.

Posted on March 29, 2018 .

Mills v Sell & Savage The True Facts behind this bizarre case

Mills v Sell & Savage the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

It is very difficult to have any sympathy for the Mills, from the very beginning knowingly attempting to avoid their legal obligations under the Act, and as a consequence have created what can only be described as

For the past few years Philip Antino has maintained a dignified silence whilst quietly observing misconceived understanding of the TRUE circumstances surrounding the Mills v Sell and Mills v Savage decision handed down by HHJ Bailey.

It is abundantly clear from the feedback that Philip Antino is receiving from various parties attending these seminars that Pinky & Perky are not only generating but also circulating FAKE NEWS.

This paper now sets the record straight, it is factually accurate, correct and presented in order to ensure that those gullible enough to believe Pinky & Perky do not fall into traps which could lead them to forming the wrong opinions and interpretation of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

In 2015 Mr Stuart Mills RIBA a qualified architect and his then fiancée Miss O’Callaghan purchased 29 Pembury Avenue.  A mid terraced house comprising traditional construction with a pitched roof front to rear.  The property had not been extended or altered and had previously been occupied by an elderly gentleman.

Shortly after purchasing No. 29 Mr Mills and Mrs Mills (nee O’Callaghan) introduced themselves to Mr & Mrs Sell and in a meeting that lasted no more than 5 minutes proudly exclaimed “we are going to do some improvement works”.

Mr & Mrs Sell thought no further of it and were pleased to note that the property will be bought up to a good standard of repair.  However, let’s not forget Mr & Mrs Sell are laypeople, Mr Mills is a RIBA qualified architect and his wife Mrs Mills also works in property, and were for all intents and purposes professionals.  It was somewhat surprising if not shocking that Mr Mills and his wife chose not to comply with their statutory obligations and did not serve notice for the following works.

·         Removal of chimneybreast

·         Excavation of foundations to front extension under s.6(1)

·         Building a new wall on the line of junction to the front garden

·         Removal of internal walls and cutting away from the party wall

·         Exposing the party wall and forming a loft conversion

·         Notices under s.6(1) for rear extension foundations

·         Removing the rear elevation wall

To those conversant with the Party Wall Act it will be somewhat galling that a RIBA qualified architect chose to ignore his statutory duties, but when we then consider the extent of the works which they wanted to undertake and the legality we can perhaps start to get a better picture of why they did not want to invoke the Act.  Notice it would have exposed the erroneous designs of Mr Mills RIBA, which involved various trespasses, nuisances and could not actually be built without the adjoining owners, Mr & Mrs Sell’s permission.

Mr & Mrs Sell were oblivious to the Party Wall etc. Act but works started.  A porch was constructed to the front with a hipped roof which involved the guttering, fascia, soffits projecting across the boundary between No. 29 & 31 creating a trespass.

To the rear of No. 31 the Sell’s had a longstanding single storey extension built wholly on their land.  Mr Mills design not only included enclosing upon that extension, but extending the flank wall of that extension in line (thereby wholly on No. 31’s land) to create a larger extension to the rear of No. 29.  This created another trespass plus it also exposed the Mills to having to pay a contribution at the very least to No, 31 for using their wall.

What was more frightening was the fact that this extension to the rear could not actually be built because where the Mills had decided to extend the Sell’s flank wall, required the removal of No. 31’s drain gulley which collected surface water from the extension roof, kitchen sink and washing machine waste.  This drain was located on the right hand corner (facing front) adjacent to the boundary and extended diagonally across the rear of No. 29 into an inspection chamber.  The drains running across the rear of the terrace of properties was therefore a common drain within the ownership of Thames Water Authority.

One day after returning from work whilst standing at her kitchen sink and washing up Mrs Sell pulled the plug and was saturated by an escape of water.  When she looked under the sink, the waste pipe and trap had been dislodged from the sink.  On further investigations externally they noted that their existing drain had been blocked off, their patio had been excavated a new trench formed on the opposite left hand corner of their extension.  A new plastic gulley inserted which upon lifting the manhole cover extended into the inspection chamber, approximately 400mm above the drain!!!

The guttering to the rear of their extension had been pulled off, turned around so that it fell in the opposite direction.  Installed and discharging into this new drain gulley.  The washing machine waste and kitchen sink wastepipes had been taken off, twisted around the discharged into this new gulley.

Mrs Sell then approached the builders on the following day where it became evident that the building contractor was a Mr Kevin O’Callaghan, none other than Mrs Mills father.  When confronted about this outrageous trespass and damage Mr O’Callaghan simply laughed and said we can do what we want, what are you going to do about it?  It was at this stage Mr & Mrs Sell then took legal advice.

Solicitors advised Mr & Mrs Sell to get a surveyors report, they did an internet search and subsequently instructed Philip Antino to provide an expert report on trespass and damage.  It will come as no surprise to those who are reading this blog that Philip Antino immediately noticed the breaches of the notifiable works under s.6(1), s.1(5) and s.3(1) and various sub sections under s.2(2).

At the time of the inspection the porch had been constructed to the front, the hipped roof was formed in an exposed timber skeletal frame, no fascias or soffits, or gutters fitted, but it was clearly evident that there was a trespass.  The rear extension walls had been built, no roof formed, scaffolding erected and roof tiles stripped from the front and rear elevations of the roof, the internal load bearing walls had been cut away from the party wall and chimneybreast removed in various locations adjacent to No. 27.

What was more alarming than anything was the illegal entry on to No. 31’s land and the works carried out to alter their drains, which for the avoidance of doubt is absence of any licence by the water authority in.  This could not be granted because it is the property owner that has to make the application not a neighbor, and Mr & Mrs Sell were not asked.

Philip Antino was instructed and provided a report and wrote to the Mills pointing out their breaches, asking them to give an undertaking not to do any further works until the party wall matters were resolved and the various trespass works also resolved.  Solicitors advised an injunction.

It would not be unreasonable to expect a RIBA qualified architect to simply accept that they have done wrong, and then try to resolve the matter, but not Mr & Mrs Mills.  There was an increased flow of workmen on site clearly intending to finish any remaining notifiable works before an injunction could be obtained.  An injunction was obtained and at the return date hearing 3 days later before HHJ Gold, Mr & Mrs Mills when questioned by the Judge.  They openly admitted that they were fully aware of and knowledgeable of their obligations under the Party Wall Act.

Mr Mills then did something quite outrageous he told the Judge that he had in fact served notice.  When HHJ Gold asked him to produce those notices, he of course could not.  He had effectively attempted to mislead a Judge.  This is all documented in the transcript.

The injunction was granted and that all notifiable works were stayed until party wall matters were completed.  Mr & Mrs Sell were then subjected to what can only be described as harassment, abusive behaviour, all of which was unnecessary, wholly avoidable, that involved the police being called out on a number of occasions.

One would have hoped that Mr & Mrs Mills would have now realised that the game was up, they were caught like the proverbial rabbit in the headlights and that unless they deal with this properly, things would continue to their detriment.

They appointed Mr James Hopkins MRICS a chartered surveyor, who together with Mr Antino selected Mr Charles Dawson as the Third Surveyor.  A meeting was arranged to   prepare a schedule of condition and to discuss those elements of works which had not been completed.

One would have hoped that this would have been a simple straightforward to resolve, but Mr Hopkins became objectionable with regards to various matters, which led to a referral to Mr Dawson.  The referral was dealt with.  Mr Dawson then notified the parties that he was ready to release his Award on payment of an amount of money from both the Mills and the Sells. 

Mr & Mrs Mills refused to pay the Third (Charles Dawson)Surveyor’s fees, leaving Mr & Mrs Sell to pay the money and if the Award went in their favour then having to sue the Mills to recover that money.

Is this appropriate behaviour for a RIBA qualified architect?

Upon receipt of the Third Surveyors Award Mr Hopkins wrote to Mr Antino “I am deeming myself incapable of acting under s.10(5) because my owners do not have any money to pay my fees”.

Mr Antino considered that was not sufficient grounds to deem oneself incapable of acting.  Morally, professionally any professional with an ounce of integrity would have continued to act.  Simply walking away on such spurious grounds did not render Mr Hopkins incapable, it just meant he did not want to do it because he thought he would not get paid.

Mr Dawson the Third Surveyor wrote to Mr Hopkins stating that they were not justified grounds for deeming oneself incapable of acting and that he remained the appointed surveyor.  Shortly thereafter Mr Dawson deemed himself incapable of acting because he was leaving the country for several months on business.

Mr Antino was now faced with a frustrating situation.  There was no building owners surveyor and no Third Surveyor who he could join with him under s.10(10) to complete the outstanding party wall procedures.

Requests were made for Mr Hopkins to join with Mr Antino in selecting a replacement Third Surveyor, they were met with silence.  Mr Antino made a referral to the local authority under s.10(8) and provided a list of all the surveyors that Mr Hopkins and Mr Antino had previously discounted for various reasons.

Mr Antino suggested to the local authority they might want to consider appointing someone of considerable experience and expertise in party wall matters and someone who is of high standing in a professional organisation, he suggested Mr David Taylor President of the Chartered Association of Building Engineers.

Mr Antino had never previously worked with Mr Taylor on any party wall matters.  He therefore did not consider any perceived or actual conflict of interest arising and given his status as the President of CABE that would be more appropriate than the local authority appointing another surveyor who may simply walk away or decline his s.10(8) selection.

During this time the Mills were silent, except however for Mr O’Callaghan the father/father in law of the Mills who was now becoming very vocal and writing various correspondence, which is somewhat ironic given that he was the builder who had trespassed on to Mr & Mrs Sell’s land, caused the damage, the nuisance etc.  The Mills simply refused to engage with their statutory duties until the selection of Mr Taylor.  Then the Mills suddenly woke up and realised that they will have to comply with the legal obligations as set out by Parliament under the Act.

They appointed Mr Mike Harry, previously unknown to Mr Antino. I was genuinely anticipated that this would be a welcomed relief from the tirade of correspondence which was simply nonsensical for Mr O’Callaghan.  However, that was to be short lived, Mr Harry’s opening gambit was to provide a letter of appointment which indicated that the Mills were now living at a particular address which was in fact incorrect.  Given that there is an obligation to serve notice on the last known address, Mr Antino quite rightly wanted to know exactly where the Mills were living, because not only had they never lived at 29 they had now sold it to Mr O’Callaghan.  The plot thickens.

Why would a building owner want to withhold their address unless it was to avoid being served with an Award!!!

Mr Harry unperturbed by Mr Antino’s request then agreed to have another letter of appointment signed which included another incorrect address for the Mills.  Mr Harry then proclaimed that in any event it does not matter, proclaiming we do not even need to have an address on a letter of appointment.  Really!!!

Well despite what Judge Bailey said in his judgment, that has to be in law fundamentally wrong, because that could open all sorts of possibilities for people to abuse appointments.  Falsely claiming to be appointed by owners when they are not, it could lead to documents being sent to an incorrect address therefore not reaching the adjoining owners, but more importantly why would you not want to have an address on the letter, it makes no sense, especially when it must be included in the Award.

There was a referral to the Third Surveyor Mr Taylor, Mr Antino believed that he owed Mr Taylor an implied if not an explicit duty of care to advise him of the Mills previous conduct in refusing to pay Mr Dawson’s fees.

The fact that the Mills had a proven history of simply ignoring the statutory procedures and/or requests by Third Surveyors for payment, Mr Antino was quite concerned (justifiably so), and that the Mills would do exactly the same again.

Mr Antino invited the Third Surveyor to make a request from both parties that they should pay their fees in advance of him doing any work rather than Mr & Mrs Sell again being faced with a fait accompli and having to pay all the fees.

Mr & Mrs Sell agreed, Mr & Mrs Savage, and guess what the Mills refused saying it was unlawful.  Now subsequently in the forthcoming hearing HHJ Bailey said that was inappropriate and unacceptable, which in my opinion was wrong.

However, HHJ Bailey on the 14th November 2017 in the Mohamed v Antino & Stevens case where Mr Antino raised the very point as to how surveyors would get paid if owners could simply rescind the appointment of the tribunal of surveyors and replace them with someone they refer to as an agreed surveyor.

Shock horror, HHJ Bailey said well there is nothing to stop the Third Surveyor asking for money up front and during the process of the referral.  This is a clear contradiction of what HHJ Bailey ruled in the earlier decision of Mills v Sell and Mills v Savage!!!

The matter needed to be resolved the Sell and Savage families paid the fees as requested by Mr Taylor, the Mills did not.  An Award between the Third Surveyor and Mr Antino under s.10(10), perfectly lawful was served in accordance with s.15 of the Act at the last known address.  An address had been proven to be for the Mills in Croydon certificates of posting were obtained.  Not unsurprisingly the Mills were silent for a period greater than 14 days.  Then up pops Mr Frame on behalf of the Mills with an application to appeal the Award and surprise surprise they claimed they had never received the Award in the first instance.

Now that in itself is quite a shocking statement to make, given the well-established and longstanding law and with specific reference to s.7 of the Interpretation Act adopted throughout the legal profession.  Post is deemed to be delivered 48 hours after being consigned to the Royal Mail, the certificates of posting confirmed that the Awards had been consigned, Mr & Mrs Savage received their copy of the Award, Mr & Mrs Sell received their copy of the Award.

The Award went against the Mills and quite rightly so for the breaches, the damage, the trespass and the nuisance.  However, in his infinite wisdom HHJ Bailey deemed that the Awards had not been received (he did not say they had not been posted).

HHJ Bailey continued stating he was surprised that the Awards had not been served by email.  Now a lot of surveyors will say that seems sensible but given the explicit wording of s.15 there is no provision for service of Awards by electronic mail and therefore the Awards were served in accordance with the Act.

If we then move forward to the recent Court of Appeal decision in Knight v Goulandris another one of HHJ Bailey’s decisions justifiably overturned by the Court of Appeal, he stated that the Award served by the Third Surveyor was invalid because it had been served by email.  A direct contradiction to what he was claiming in the Mills v Sell and Mills v Savage case!!!

Furthermore, for those of you are familiar with the party wall procedures will be aware of the Party Wall etc. Act (Electronic Communications) Order seeking to clarify whether or not electronic communications were sufficient for service of documents.  So it is quite clear that there was conflicting opinions and interpretations as to whether service by email at that time was valid or not.

Mr Hopkins claimed that he could not continue to act because Mr & Mrs Mills did not have any money to pay his fees.  The question then is how did they propose to Mr Harry’s fees and then subsequently following commencement of litigation they miraculously found tens thousands of pounds to pursue what was an appeal of an Award which does not achieve anything for them because the party wall matters are still ongoing and they will still be faced with the same claim that they trespassed, caused damage, breached their statutory obligations and are required to pay costs and professional fees incurred.

Philip Antino 28.03.2018

Posted on March 28, 2018 .

Dr. Ahmed v Mr G Moore & Mrs S Moore (2018) Court of Appeal

This is a rather bizarre if not very sad case of where Dr Ahmed having lost her case in 2012 she decided she would try again and made an application to the Court of Appeal to appeal the earlier decisions.  Some 5 years after losing and well outside the timetable for the lodging of an appeal, Dr Ahmed went off to the Court of Appeal (2017) to plead her case that there were exceptional grounds for granting an appeal.

It transpired in the documents submitted in support of the appeal that for the past 5 years she had been pursuing complaints against just about everybody she thought she could have a go at in order to try and get the money back that she lost through her inappropriate litigation.

This of course was very upsetting for Mr & Mrs Moore who thought after so many years of inactivity that the matter was now fully behind them, having been paid all of their costs that they laid out, just starting to get back on track and the distressing memories of the litigation brought about by Dr Ahmed were becoming part of a distant memory.

Mr & Mrs Moore contacted Philip Antino immediately and asked whether she could in fact do this.  Mr Antino did not believe that she could but referred them to Mr Ashley Bean of Littlestone Cowan Solicitors.  Mr Bean wrote a letter to the Court on behalf of the Mr & Mrs Moore (because Mr & Mrs Moore did not have a right of audience).  The Court rejected Dr Ahmed’s application stating that there were no extenuating grounds for the unreasonable and excessive delay in making the application to appeal.

Undeterred Dr Ahmed then made another application to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal for refusing her grounds to appeal, and a hearing was listed for the 27th February 2018.

Mr & Mrs Moore having discussed the matter with Mr Antino who seemed quite bemused with this situation believed that Dr Ahmed really would not succeed, Mr & Mrs Moore then instructed Littlestone Cowan and Mr Richard Power of Lamb Chambers who made written submissions which again went before the Court.

Dr Ahmed’s application to appeal was dismissed and Mr & Mrs Moore’s costs ordered against her.

Posted on March 21, 2018 .

Alistair Redler FRICS Senior partner at Delva Patman

Alistair Redler FRICS – Manor Road Senior Partner Delva Patman

During the past 20 years since the Act was invoked, it has been somewhat surprising that my path did not cross with Mr. Alistair Redler (Delva Patman Redler) in either a professional or social capacity until late 2014.  Yet since that first meeting our paths have crossed on three separate party wall matters being Bibizadeh v Dodosh, Mohamed v Takhar, and Hart v Spencer.

First experience

In Bibizadeh v Dodosh Mr. Redler was purported to have been appointed by the Bibizadeh’s as their party wall surveyor.  Despite the fact that a s.10(4) notice had been validly served upon the Bibizadeh’s and their refusal to appoint a surveyor, (perhaps driven by the misconceived contention of their solicitors) as noted in para 38 of the judgement “my clients are not prepared to give the undertakings you seek, nor serve a new notice, nor appoint a party wall surveyor”.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that I executed the statutory procedures and appointed a surveyor on their behalf.

As HHJ Bailey observes in his Judgment, they were content with this arrangement and the replacement surveyor engaged with them and Mr. Antino in order to move matters forward.  Then we received a document purporting to be a letter of appointment for Mr. Redler signed, dated after the appointment of the s.10(4) surveyor. The Bibizadehs and Indeed Mr. Redler were made aware again of the s10(4) appointment.

Undeterred, the Bibizadeh’s maintained that Mr. Redler was their surveyor and did not engage with the replacement surveyor.  Those of you that are familiar with the statutory procedures would know that Mr. Redler did not have any statutory position as he did not form part of the Tribunal.
 

Not unsurprisingly, the matter ended up in Court and before HHJ Bailey, where it required the Learned Judge to state at para 79, “Mr. Stevens appointment was valid”.  Thus Mr. Redler appointment was invalid.  

In December 2014 I joined with the s.10(4) surveyor and produced an Award, that Award was subsequently appealed, the appeal failed and the Bibizadeh’s were exposed to considerable legal costs of many thousands of pounds.

Second experience

My next experience of Mr. Redler was just over a year later in the Mohamed v Takhar matter, where the Mohamed’s had appointed Mr. Michael Osborn as the building owner’s surveyor and I had been appointed as the adjoining owner’s surveyor.  The third surveyor was jointly selected and the tribunal completed. There were significant technical defects in the building owners design of a basement construction of epic proportions, but nonetheless with skillful assistance of the adjoining owner’s engineers, the building owner’s engineers were able to be directed and advised as to what would be structurally stable and acceptable.

Mr. Osborn could not or more appropriately would not proactively engage with Mr. Antino to agree his fees.  Despite Mr. Osborn’s reluctance, Mr. Antino had suggested and indeed encouraged Mr. Osborn to at least sign and serve the Parent Award absent of any fees so that the building owners could commence their works.

Then up pops Mr. Redler’s name when the building owner sent an email stating that he had instructed Mr. Redler, now those of you that are familiar with the Act understand the principle of s.10(2).  A letter of appointment claiming Mr. Redler was now the building owner’s surveyor was produced. The only circumstances that could allow Mr. Redler to be appointed was for Mr. Osborn to deem himself incapable under s.10(5), which of course he had not done so at the time that the Building owners email was circulated claiming to have appointed Mr. Redler. Mr. Osbourn was plainly  not incapacitated.

Surprisingly, that is exactly what Mr. Osborn did on the day after Mr. Redler’s letter of appointment was dated and signed by the building owner. WHAT A COINCIDENCE THE BUILDING OWNER WAS ABLE TO PREDICT AN ALLEGED INCAPACITY OR WAS HE !!!!!!

It occurred to me that Mr. Osborn’s purported incapacity was not based on genuine grounds, and a request for an explanation regarding the mysterious incapacity was requested. Mr. Osborn was reluctant to give any indication of what the purported incapacity was.  

Interestingly in the Bibizadeh case HHJ Bailey At para 78 “plainly the formalities of the Act have to be complied with, and complied with strictly”.  At para 84 Judge Bailey continues “it is agreed at the Bar, and certainly it is my view, that the expression becomes or deems himself incapable of acting is to be interpreted more widely than referring to an incapability by way of physical or mental disability but there is no guidance in the Act as to what constitutes incapability for the purpose of s.10(5)”.

Whilst it is not a requirement that private and personal information is disclosed, it is reasonable that an explanation should be given, i.e. retirement, moving away from the area etc. 

Again, with reference to the Bibizadeh case in which Mr. Redler was held not to be validly appointed, Counsel for the Bibizadeh’s gave an explanation as to what would be the grounds for a deemed incapacity.

At para 85 Judge Bailey records “Miss Holmes submits that for a surveyor to deem himself incapable of acting does require a proper basis”, HHJ Bailey response is “I entirely agree…..” It was therefore not unreasonable of Mr. Antino to make enquiries as to the reasonable conduct and grounds for Mr. Osborn’s purported incapacity.  Mr. Antino was quite justified in being cynical of this purported incapacity, the timing of the purported appointment of Mr. Redler.  in litigation were The Mohamed’s were represented by Mr. Nicholas Isaac of Counsel in his book at para 7-24 “appointments shall not be rescinded observe the parties cannot rescind appointments under s.10 is regularly a source of dismay to appointing owners who, for whatever reason, have fallen out with their surveyors.  However, it is clear that appointments (and selections) under s.10 are indeed irrevocable …..”

Against this background it is difficult to understand why Mr. Redler believed he was validly appointed

It is notable that with some reluctance by email dated 23.09.15 at 10:46 that Mr. Mike Osborn wrote “with reference to previous correspondence there is no obligation to give any reason to deeming myself incapable of acting.  Notwithstanding this and to obviate any further unnecessary correspondence I set out my reasons below.”

 “I am out of the country from the 30th of this month for three weeks and on my return, I will have to go to Spain to finalize some medical treatment.  In addition, my wife will be having major operation before Christmas.  In the run up to Christmas I shall therefore be out of circulation for approximately 7 -8 weeks”.

The important point here to note is that by Mr. Osborn’s own hand his incapacity did not bite until the 30th September “I am out of the country from the 30th of this month….” Mr. Antino accepted this as a genuine ground to deem oneself incapable of acting,

However, Mr. Osborn’s was available to carry on with his statutory duties for a further 7 days, Mr. Antino served a request under s.10(6) dated 23.09.15 stating “I am sympathetic to your situation; however, you have been and remain available to continue with your statutory duties at the present time.  Accordingly, I now request you join with me and reach agreement of my fees which for the avoidance of doubt are as follows….”

It is perhaps somewhat bizarre to note that the deemed incapacity was first notified and served on 07.09.15 by Mr. Osborn some 23 days before his intended departure for Spain without some coincidence actually 1 day prior to the purported appointment of Mr. Redler dated the 08.09.15 by the Mohamed’s.

It is clear to see that Mr. Osborn had sufficient time to deal with the outstanding matters but chose not to.  A full explanation of that has never been given by Mr. Osborn. Ironically, and without any coincidence on the 23.09.15 an email from Mr. Redler was received at 12:27 in the following terms:

“Dear Mr. Antino, I note your letter and continue to disagree with you.  You will now have received an email from Mike Osborn giving his reasons for standing down, so I hope that you will now accept that.  At that point, do write to me as the appointed surveyor.”

Mr. Antino responded by email on the 23.09.15 at 15:20 in the following terms: “Dear Mr. Redler, in response to your email of today at 12:27 I do not agree with your contention and further I do not accept that Mr. Osborn has satisfied the grounds under s.10(5) and therefore remains the validly appointed surveyor for your clients the building owners.” (emphasis added).

Mr. Antino received a bounce back email from Mr. Redler at 23:09.15 at 15:21, which advised in the following terms: “I am out of the office until Wednesday 30th September but will be picking up emails intermittently.  If matters were urgent please contact my office on 020 7936 3668.”

So here we have Mr. Osborn deeming himself incapable some 23 days prior to the alleged/purported incapacity biting on the 30th September, and ironically Mr. Redler was himself by virtue of his email of 23.09.15 at 15:21 also incapable of acting until 30.09.15.

Mr. Antino proceeded in accordance with the s.10(6) request and prepared and served an ex-parte Award dealing with those costs.  The Award was not appealed, but a claim by the building owners that they did not receive the Award was made.  An alarmingly similarity with the defense put forward by Mr. Frame in the Mills v Sell and Mills v Savage cases.  Unfortunately, the Mohamed appeal has never been heard because, (and this will be dealt with in a further substantive blog), the building owners and adjoining owners entered into mediation to resolve outstanding matters.

Those matters which do have a relevance to this blog were discussed in open court on 14.11.17 and 19.12.17 and are now in the public domain and not covered by any non-disclosure clause.  At a hearing on the 14.11.17. Mr. Antino expressed in clear terms his concern about the behavior of Mr. Redler who made an untrue statement about the existence of certain drawings, method statements etc. It was later discovered that that in fact did exist.  That led to an adjudication where Mr. Daniel Getty of Hardwicke chambers determined that the information requested by Mr. Antino from Mr. Redler should have been disclosed under the terms of the Osbourne/Antino award and determined that the Mohammed’s should pay the takhers £50,000 compensation plus costs.

At the hearing of 14.11.17 Mr. Antino acting as Counsel raised his concern about the purported appointment of Mr. Redler and whether there were substantial grounds and evidence proving that Mr. Osborn was in fact not incapacitated until the 30th September.

In HHJ Bailey’s Judgement (Mohamed v Antino & Takhar 2017) Judge Bailey records in his judgement at paragraph 4 “shortly thereafter, on 09.09.15, Mr. Osborn declared himself incapable of acting, and the building owners appointed Mr. Redler in his place.  Whether Mr. Redler’s appointment as the building owner’s surveyor was effective from 09.09.15, when it was made, or from 30.09.15, as Mr. Antino (with some justification) ………………….”

Plainly even though that particular issue was not a matter in relation to the Mohamed v Antino & Stevens case, HHJ Bailey felt it appropriate to make the observation that Mr. Antino’s concerns were justified.

So, in a nutshell this was now the second time that there were justified grounds to confirm that Mr. Redler was not the appointed surveyor as purported to be.  Given Mr. Redler’s reputation, it is difficult to understand how a professional of his experience knowledge and involvement with the Party Wall Act could not understand the basic principles which must be fundamental to the proper appointment of a tribunal of surveyors.

It is also important to note that immediately on the 30.09.15, Mr. Antino was prepared to and in fact did engage with Mr. Redler with further outstanding party wall matters.  It is disappointing but important to note that the administration of the party wall matters following the Parent Award agreed and served by Mr. Antino and Mr. Osborn in the first instance were not adhered to and this led to considerable issues and concerns which caused circa £225,000 of damage to the adjoining owners property of which Mr. Redler assisted with a QS calculated the value to be £2,000. 

 Third experience of Mr. Redler

It is against the aforementioned background that in 2017 Mr Redler’s path crossed for the third (hopefully the final) time in a party wall matter. A In this case (Hart v Spencer) Mr Antino was the adjoining owner’s surveyor for Mrs. Hart, a Mr Johnson was the surveyor for the building owner.

The property was located in Loughton, Essex, Mr Johnson is located in Chester.  A third surveyor selection was never reached and a referral by Mr Johnson to the local authority was made and yes you guessed it, Mr Redler was selected.

One would have thought against the aforementioned background of Bibizadeh and the Mohamed cases, that Mr Redler might have decided that accepting this selection could create tensions and concerns with a perceived conflict of interest, undeterred he indeed accepted the selection. 

Prior to any Award being in place the building owner commenced his notifiable excavations, Mr Antino was called out to record the evidence so that an injunction could be obtained.  During that inspection Mr Spencer assaulted Mr Antino causing damage for which he was arrested. Mr. Spencer admitted the charge of criminal damage and received a police caution and ordered to pay damages.

Mr Redler then subsequently having been approached by Mr Johnson took fees directly from the building owner and had a site meeting.  Mr Redler had notified Mr Antino by email, despite the fact that Mr Antino had expressly rejected as was his right, electronic communications as a means of service of documents etc. It is difficult to understand Mr. Redler’s approach given his position in the P&T and the current addition of the green book which recognizes the legal rights not to exchange documents by email.  Perhaps, Mr. Redler’s had a reason for only giving notification of the meeting within 24 hours, but t none has ever been given. however, clearly this is another irregularity that raises concern with Mr. Redler’s conduct and application of the Act.

The discussion at that meeting was never disclosed by way of any handwritten notes by Mr Redler, he appeared to be engaging directly with the building owner and his surveyor and again it is therefore not surprising that Mr Antino has some reservations regarding the administration of statutory procedures.

Conclusion

There are a number of consistencies and similarities between the Bibizadeh’s, Mohamed’s and Spencer’s, the building owners had all breached the party wall procedures in one way or another, they sought to then antagonize and complicate matters by simply refusing to adhere to the party wall procedures.

Unfortunately, the building owners simply proceeded to abuse the statutory legislation to the effect that the Act is now in Mr Antino’s opinion, becoming an unworkable piece of legislation, and it exposes adjoining owners to abuse, trespass, damage, financial exposure the likes of which should never ever occur.

 

Posted on January 9, 2018 .

Local authority appointing officer fails to act correctly under s.10(8)

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
Mr P. Antino BSc (Hons) MSc MRICS CIOB
A.P.A Property Services Ltd
145 New London Road
Chelmsford
Essex
CM2 0QT


BY EMAIL ONLY: enquiries@apaproperty.com
Your ref: C994a/PA/NB


Our ref: REG0000138725 – please quote this reference on all correspondence
8 January 2018


Dear Mr Antino

Re: Complaint regarding Mr ???????????? MRICS

I write further to previous correspondence regarding your complaint against the above individual.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. RICS takes its regulatory role seriously and
would be unable to discharge this role fully without information being brought to its attention by members of the public and Members of RICS. RICS will investigate complaints to ascertain whether there has been a breach of RICS’ Rules. Not every breach will result in disciplinary action being taken as RICS takes a risk based approach to regulation and applies the principle of proportionality. 

An investigation has been conducted to establish whether there is evidence of a potential breach of RICS’ Rules of Conduct for Members and this investigation has now concluded.

I have considered your letter, dated 12 July 2017 (with accompanying enclosures), and the
response from Mr ?????????, with supporting information.

My understanding of your complaint is that Mr ????????, whose role was the Appointing Officer (selected Mr ?????? as Third Surveyor), failed to request your contact details and/or  contact you in relation to this selection, and that he selected Mr ???? without inquiring with Mr ??? as to which Surveyors had been included within the list of proposed Third Surveyors and/or whether any of these had been rejected by you.

It is also my understanding that Mr ?????? failed to respond to your correspondence dated 13 June 2017 and 4 July 2017, and that he failed to provide the Complaints Procedure when requested).

We have considered Mr ???? response; his view was that the Party Wall Act does not expressly
require the Appointing Officer to contact both Surveyors, and he had received advice from other Party Wall Surveyors in this regard. Further, the Third Surveyor (Mr ?????) confirmed he would contact all parties upon appointment. Mr ????? further advised that he had acted in good faith.

We have also been advised that you submitted a complaint to ??????? District Council, who considered your complaint and that this was not upheld.

The Head of Regulation has decided that there is no realistic prospect of establishing that Mr ?????? is liable for disciplinary action.

RICS will not, therefore, be proceeding with disciplinary action against Mr Dixon and I am now
closing my file.

However, we have provided advice to Mr ????? regarding the communication of the selection of Third Surveyors to both Surveyors (for the Adjoining Owner(s) and for the Building Owner(s)); i.e. both Surveyors must be notified, and if the contact details of one of the Surveyors is unknown, the details should be sought from the other Surveyor. In addition, we have provided advice to Mr?????? regarding responding to correspondence received.

Thank you for contacting RICS Regulation and assisting us in enhancing the risk profiling of our Members.

Yours sincerely
Miss ??????????? BSc(Hons) GDip PGDip
Lead Investigator
RICS Regulation
t: +44 (0)2476 868559
e: ?????????y@rics.org

Posted on January 8, 2018 .

J P Ferguson & F E Ferguson v A G Lloyd-Baker (2017) Central London County Court

The Award was withdrawn by Mr Lloyd-Baker following legal advice, accepting that the Award was as Mr Antino had contended all along  invalid.  

Mr & Mrs Ferguson (the appellants) filed an appeal at the Central London County Court challenging an Award, served by Mr Mark Behan appointed by Mr Lloyd-Baker and Mr Simon Price, the third surveyor selected under s.10(8) of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.

Mr Philip Antino was Mr & Mrs Ferguson’s surveyor.  Mr Lloyd-Baker wanted to construct a basement beneath his end of terrace house which adjoined the appellant’s property and other notifiable works. Mr Mark Behan prepared and served notices for the basement which surprisingly, incorporated special foundations extending across the boundary line.

Mr Antino experienced considerable difficulties with Mr Behan in selecting a third surveyor.  Mr Behan insisted that it should be someone from his list of preferred surveyors.   Included in that list was Mr Simon Price, a chartered surveyor and director of the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors of which Mr Behan is also a member. Mr Behan refused to accept anyone unless it was someone he suggested. Regrettably there was no agreement on the selection of the third surveyor and Mr Behan approached the local authority who subsequently selected Mr Simon Price under s10(8).

Mr Antino’s primary concern was the use of special foundations. the Fergusons exercised their section 7(4) veto. To his credit Mr Behan immediately accepted that the works included special foundations. Although it is not clear why he chose not to disclose that fact in his notices! Had he done so openly, the Fergusons may well have consented to the works, but clearly the omission of this important point caused the Fergusons concern, and justifiably so.  

The proposed works incorporated reinforced concrete walls tied to the floor slab, as such, creating a ‘box’ construction. The integrity of the box to support the imposed loads of the building above and the lateral loads form the adjacent soil was dependent on the ‘box’ design. The building owner’s engineers were asked to redesign the basement to avoid special foundations. They simply introduced concrete rails beneath the basement box floor slab, and ignored the special foundation beneath the party fence wall.  Mr Behan argued that the special foundations had been removed and therefore the award should be served. Mr Antino did not accept this contention. 

Mr Behan was in direct correspondence with Mr Simon Price who wrote to Mr Antino stating that the proposed works did not include special foundations.  Mr Antino rejected this contention explaining that there were special foundations and that Mr & Mrs Ferguson had exercised their right under s.7(4) and in the absence of any written consent, an Award could not authorise special foundations on the adjoining owners land.

Mr Price and Mr Behan, ignored Mr Antino’s observations and produced an award, leaving Mr Antino out of the statutory procedures. It took some 7/8 months for Mr Simon Price and Mr Mark Behan to eventually serve an Award.  Mr Antino advised Mr & Mrs Ferguson that the Award was ultra viries, because it sought to authorise special foundations across the boundary line without their written consent was therefore unlawful.

Mr & Mrs Ferguson filed an appeal within the 14-day statutory period, and Mr Lloyd-Baker having taken legal advice agreed to withdrew the Award and agree to pay Mr & Mrs Ferguson’s substantial legal costs. 

In august 2017 Mr Behan served new notices with a revised scheme removing special foundations from the proposed works. Mr. Antino challenged the validity of the notices as they did not comply with section 6(6). Mr Behan accepted Mr Antino’s points and then in October served new notices. The surveyors were unable to agree a third surveyor and a section 10(8) selection was made but not Mr Price. An award has yet to be agreed.

What was disappointing from the first appealed award is that Mr Simon Price did not engage fully with Mr Antino under section 10(11), despite Mr Antino’s numerous request to be included in the award process. Mr Behan and Mr Price chose not to include Mr Antino. 

This is particularly frustrating and disappointing because Mr Simon Price had a duty as the Third Surveyor to remain neutral and impartial. For reasons that are not clear, he simply joined with Mr Behan and simply pushed ahead (to the detriment of Mr Lloyd-baker) ignoring all of Mr Antino’s advice, concerns and/or observations that the award based on the scheme could not proceed as set out in the drawings attached to the notices, because they sought to legalise works which could not be executed without the Ferguson’s agreement.  Mr Price and Mr Behan simply failed to understand what constituted a special foundation.

Posted on January 4, 2018 .

Adjudication-v- Litigation

 The following case demonstrates the benefits of avoiding litigation at all costs

if the case had gone thought the traditional route say with counsel and solicitors appointed by both sides and then the usual disclosure, case management hearings, and hearing before a judge the parties would have been exposed to several years of delay and costs estimated to be £200,000 plus

Mr & Mrs E Husein v Mr S Dassu (2107) Adjudication, N. A. Dight

Philip Antino acted for the respondent (Dassu) in this building dispute. The referring party (Husein)  engaged the respondent to undertake significant building works to their property with a final contract sum of £138,004 plus vat. A dispute arose, the respondent made allegations of poor workmanship alluded to in a report prepared by Mr Campbell of Land Commercial Chartered Surveyors.

N.A .Dight  was the adjudictaor appointed to resolve the dispute, recorded “I agree with Mr Antino’s opinion that Mr Campbells report is akin to a snagging report rather than an experts report identifying by factual evidence and expert opinion alleged defects” Mr Antino’s report had identified minor snagging items and incomplete works estimated at  £6876 by way of abatement. The referring party rejected this opinion and sought £100,000. The adjudicator dismissed the claim accepting again Mr Antino’s evidence and awarded after adjustments the referring party pay to the respondent a final payment of £15,078.00. in addition the referring party were ordered to pay theadjudicators costs of paid the costs£12,602.88.  From anticipating a windfall of £100,000, the Referring party (Hussein) ended up paying £28,000 plus their own costs.

Posted on September 26, 2017 .