APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

RICS APOLOGISES FOR INVESTIGATION WHERE CHARGES ARE WITHDRAWN AT FORMAL HEARING

RICS RESPONDS TO COMPLAINTS ABOUT RICS CONDUCT AND INVESTIGATION OF ITS MEMBERS

Reduced/ Paraphrased for ease of fitting into blog site

Mrs Christine O’Rourke

Head Of Conduct

RICS Regulation

Our ref: IDT-COR/REG0000101195

Your Ref:C679/PA/NB

Dear Mr Antino

Re: Your complaint against Mr Gutteridge and Mr Baker

You make a number of complaints in your letter…….

I have summarised each of the complaints you have made below as headings in bold and set out my findings and the evidence I have taken into account under these headings.

That Mr Baker failed to view your file when you invited him to do so, that this gave you false reassurance that he had realised the complainant had been harassing your office and that this added to your shock and distress on receipt of formal charges

I have identified two areas where I believe that our investigation could have been improved. The first is that you should have been asked in terms, preferably at the beginning of the investigation, whether Mr Jones had ever consented to your sharing information about him with the adjoining owner. This would have helped you to respond fully to the complaint. I also agree that it would have been better if Mr Baker had identified the relevant documents and requested them at an earlier stage in his investigation as this would have been less confusing for you.

I am sorry for any distress and confusion that these failings caused. Our ongoing training with investigators will focus on identifying the right questions to ask and the right documents to seek at the earliest possible stage.

That the RICS did not invite you to include any documents in support of your defence to the bundle

I have also reviewed the correspondence you received from our Committee Business team prior to the hearing. On 26 March 2014 you were first informed of a hearing date in a letter from Ms Berry. You then entered into further correspondence about your availability for a hearing with the Committee Business team.

These letters do not provide you with any information about when you should provide a bundle for the hearing. Mrs Jones sent you an e mail of 25 April 2014 which attached the Disciplinary, Registration and Appeal Panel Rules and directed you to Rule 23 (which contains the provisions for bundles to be provided to the panel) but did not explain that this included these provisions.

The first letter in which you were told in terms that you should provide a bundle was from Mrs Jones sent on 12 August 2014 confirming that your case was listed for a hearing on 17 September and setting out the requirement that you should provide any documents on which you wished to rely 14 days before the hearing. I understand that this letter arrived when you were on holiday.

The notice you were given of the hearing met the requirements of Rule 23, but I agree that you should have been given more notice that you could provide documents. I also believe that earlier letters that you were sent during the investigation should have been clearer that you could provide documents at any stage of the investigation.

I understand that Committee Business colleagues have already identified that their initial letters should provide more guidance for members facing disciplinary proceedings and that their letter now encloses a help sheet for members which includes information about when to submit a bundle of documents. I have attached a copy of this guidance.

I will also ask for changes to be made to letters sent by the investigation team to ensure that they are clearer. I am sorry that we have not been as clear as we could have been in dealing with your case.

That negligence by RICS in bringing the charges has caused loss to you

I have identified some areas in which we could have done better in investigating the complaint. In particular I have identified that we should have provided you with information about the requirements of Rule 23 in relation to the provision of documents sooner.

Conclusion and independent review

In conclusion I have found that there are four areas where the RICS could have done better in our investigation:

- You should have been asked whether the complainant had consented to information being shared with the adjoining owners

- We should have identified and asked for relevant documents at an earlier stage in the investigation

- You should have been informed that you could provide relevant documents at any point during the investigation

- You should have been informed of the requirements of Rule 23 in relation to the provision of documents for the panel sooner.

I am sorry for these failings. As I have explained we have addressed the last point through changes to the information provided to members with the initial listing letter, we will address the first and second through training for investigators, and will address the third through amendments to our standard letters.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke

Head of Conduct

RICS Regulation

Judges Comments and Opinions regarding Dr. Antino

  • The party wall world is relatively small, the stage of this world contains a number of well-known players, Mr Antino is one of these well-known players and so are his owners instructing solicitor Mr Ashley Bean of Thirsk Winton

    HHJ Bailey - [2016]
  • The Claimants have a very experienced legal team comprising Mr David Mayall of lambchambers & Mr Ashley Bean of thirsK winton and their surveyro Dr. Philip Antino. The evidence in particular of the Defendant’s plans for both the Accessway and the plans and how it impacted upon the Claimants business was important information that The Defendants ahd not provided when requested.

    HHJ Freedland QC - [2021]
  • "Mr Antino is a palpable witness, Mr Antino's explanation of the unique attributes of the "Thompson Plan" greatly assisted the Court to understand the location and extent of the claimants’ boundaries” (Best & Best v Perkins & Dennis in the County Court at Luton).

    HHJ Hildyard - [2015]
  • The appeal was a preliminary hearing of two points in respect of an Award served by Mr Antino and a surveyor appointed by Mr Antino under s.10(4) on behalf of the Building Owners the Appellants. HHJ Luba QC sitting in the Central London County Court held "In my judgment the Award is valid, the use of s.10(4) was the appropriate procedure given the Building Owners refusal to appoint a surveyor. A dispute had arisen that satisfied s.10 procedures, The Award is an impressive piece of work". Schmid v Hulls and Athananasou).

    HHJ Luba QC - [2016]
  • “Mr Antino is an acknowledged expert in the field of party wall issues.”

    HHJ Murfitt QC 2013 - [2015]
  • “I have known Philip for many years as a surveyor, he is a very good surveyor, as this book shows he is a very good author and this book can only advance his reputation”

    HHJ Philip Bartle QC - [2012]
  • “In the appeal of an ex-parte Award served by Mr Antino on behalf of the respondents, in my judgment the respondent is correct. Mr Antino’s contention that it is not a matter for negotiation directly between one surveyor and the other surveyor’s client. Since I have determined that the ex-parte Award was valid the court is still able to determine the Award and under the statutory powers to modify the Award if appropriate. I am grateful to Mr Antino suggesting that I now determine the Award issue “I accept that Mr Antino’s hourly rate is not in my judgment unreasonable. It follows that the fee set out in the ex-parte Award had been properly justified and I therefore award Mr Antino’s fees”. (Bansal v Myers Romford County Court).

    HHJ Platt - [2007]

Latest Posts

Alex Frame’s Third Surveyor Award of compensation reduced by 50% in May & Crown Ltd v Shipton & Shipton [H20CL085]

Alex Frame (President of the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors) www.fpws.org.uk was selected as a Third Surveyor, awards excessive damages.H ...

Continue Reading

Injunctions for breach of party wall act 1996: the only legal option

Conaghan & Conaghan v Abdul (2022) Edmonton County Court “return date hearing”This follows the ex-parte injunction of the 11.02.22 Mr Abdul (the Defendant) instructed Mr St ...

Continue Reading

Shah v Ken Power & Lee Kyson [2022] EWHC 209 (QB) Mr Justice Eyre

Appeal in the High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division in relation to an ex temporejudgment of HHJ Parfitt in a party wall matter.  The Appellants were represented by Mr Nick Isaac QC and Mr. Carl Fain on a direct access basis both of Tanfi ...

Continue Reading

Need our Services?

Click the button below to be brought to our inquiry form and we will contact you as soon as possible to discuss. Alternatively, call us on 01245 492495.

GET IN TOUCH