APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

Dr Antino advises on Dilapidations saved his clients £58,633.18

Every now and again, well in fact more often than not it now seems, a landlord will attempt to obtain financial gain by using the dilapidations protocol when they have suffered no loss.

Don’t get caught out, get smart contact Dr. Antino and let him defend you against this sharp and questionable practice of obtaining a windfall 

Messrs Ince Gordon Dadds LLP (IGD) solicitors who had prepared and served the pre-action protocol claim on behalf of the landlords demanded £58,733.18 on the 15th of June 2022.  In Theory, Ltd were tenants.

Alarmed at having to pay the landlord they instructed Dr. Philip Antino.

On the 24th of June only 9 days later Dr. Antino considered this an unjustified claim without any merit and a clear abuse of the pre-action protocol process for recovering legitimate damages. Dr. Antino prepared and served an immediate rebuttal and a part 36 offer of £100 + Vat in full and final settlement.

On the 5th July 2022, Messrs Ince Gordon Dadds LLP (IGD) solicitors accepted the part 36 offer of £100.00 + vat in full and final settlement.

 Dr Antino had saved his clients £58,633.18

 

The landlords instructed Messrs Ince Gordon Dadds LLP (IGD) solicitors https://www.incegd.com/en/contact-us and an Simmons Taylor Hall (STH) http://www.simmonstaylorhall.co.uk/ a RICS Regulated firm of surveyors to prepare a schedule of dilapidations who assessed the landlord's disrepair at £58,733.18 inclusive of VAT. 

Dr. Philip Antino after consideration of the woefully prepared and poorly drafted schedule of dilapidations recognized this for what it was. A truly false claim for damages.

Given that Gordan Dadds is a global law firm it raises serious questions that may well be referred to the law society

Dr. Antino immediately notified both IGD and STH of his involvement and requested standard information that is required to be disclosed when a landlord is seeking unjustified dilapidations claim. 

These are as follows: -

1)    Has a section 18(1) valuation been carried out to assess the cap on diminution in the reversionary interest;

2)    If not why not?

3)    Has the landlord sourced an in-going tenant?

4)    If there is an in-going tenant, what works are they undertaking to improve the building or change it to meet their commercial needs?

5)    Why was the schedule of dilapidations prepared and dated in May 2022 but not disclosed until 9 days before the handover?

6)    Is the landlord VAT registered?

7)    If the landlord is VAT registered why has VAT been included in the dilapidations claim? and

8)    What mitigation has the landlord undertaken to find new tenants?

The silence from IGD and STH was astonishing because there was no response.  Given that the landlords had instructed a worldwide firm of solicitors to commence the pre-action protocol claim for damages under alleged dilapidations obligations. It is astonishing IGD ignored the response.

Why because they knew there was no legitimate claim!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was nothing but a shake-down of the tenant and there was no basis to make this claim.

Don’t get caught out, get smart contact Dr. Antino and let him defend you against this sharp and questionable practice of obtaining a windfall

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.

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

The High Court of Justice Chancery Division Property, Trust and Probate List claim no. PT-2022-000711

Mr Stephen Pincus v Mr Sohil Singh in the High Court of Justice Chancery Division Property, Trust and Probate List claim no. PT-2022-000711Mr Pincus had owned his property for several decades.  Mr Singh bought his property in ...

Continue Reading

Goodmans Autos Ltd v Maverstone Properties Ltd (1) and Byoot Develop Ltd (2) (2021) in the County Court of Central London

The Defendants (Mavertstone & Byoot) had commenced building works in breach of the Party Wall Act, Goodman’s suffered interference, nuisance, and damage to their property and instructed Philip to represent them.  The Defendants refused to stop w ...

Continue Reading

Dr Antino advises on Dilapidations saved his clients £58,633.18

Every now and again, well in fact more often than not it now seems, a landlord will attempt to obtain financial gain by using the dilapidations protocol when they have suffered no loss. ...

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