APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

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


Mr P. Antino BSc (Hons) MSc MRICS CIOB

A.P.A Property Services Ltd

145 New London Road




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

We at APA Property are proud to have been supporting the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers for the past 10 years, leading to us becoming a recorded friend of the regiment .

Our continued support has been recognised as we have been recorded as friends of the regiment in 2021 , 2022 and 2023.

Judges Comments and Opinions regarding Dr. Antino

  • Miss Recorder Rowlands H01CL719 in Moore v Ahmed 2023

    I accept Mr Antino's (as he then was) evidence that Mr Tugby had sought instructions form Dr Ahmed as to the lien of the boundary.

    Dr Antino - Managing Director
  • 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]

During 2024 and 2023 we supported the Regiment of Support Services by assisting British World War II veterans to visit the annual Normandy Memorial Service in France .

Latest Posts

Ongoing Misuse/abuse of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996

It is astonishing that some 28 years after the introduction of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (PWA) that there continues to be a clear lack of understanding of how the PWA applies and works for both the building owner and adjoining owner.  Even more ...

Continue Reading

Outstanding Expert Services to Construction and Engineering Law 2024

Dr Antino of APA Property Services Ltd (www.apaproperty.com) has received further recognition for “Outstanding Expert Services to Construction and Engineering Law 2024” by the Federation of ...

Continue Reading

Is Adjudication Appropriate for Resolving a Dilapidation Dispute?

Is Adjudication Appropriate for Resolving a Dilapidation Dispute? Dr. Philip Ant ...

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