APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.


An RICS surveyor prepared and served a schedule of dilapidation alleging £214,410 inclusive of the VAT as the amount allegedly necessary to repair and/or reinstate an office of 2,350 sq ft. Dr. Philip Antino was appointed by the Tenant.

It was an internal repairing lease only and the tenants had at the commencement of the lease 10 years spent £148,000 + VAT fitting the office out to a very high standard.

The RICS surveyor was advised by Dr. Antino that the starting point for any dilapidations claim, is to demonstrate whether there is any diminution in the landlords reversionary interest and thus establish the section 18(1) cap.

Dr. Antino believed that on any assessment of the condition of the building there was no disrepair. It was a fully functioning modern office with air conditioning, luxury fitted kitchen, carpets, suspended ceilings and lighting, high quality WC facilities including showers, modern glazed partitioning. It was clear that there was no disrepair and that there would be no diminution in the reversion.  

The landlords RICS surveyor refused to accept the role that section 18(1) of the landlord and tenant act 1927 played in capping a landlords dilapidation claim. Furthermore, the schedule was based on a preliminary inspection some 4 months prior to the expiry of the lease, which of course dilapidation do not arise until the expiry of the term.

Dr. Antino suggested and indeed made on behalf of his clients a Part 36/Calder bank Offer of  £16,000 + VAT, plus the tenant would waive any costs incurred in trying to negotiate the resolution of the alleged dilapidation that had been incurred to date. The Part 36 Offer was ignored by the landlords’ silence.

On Dr. Antino’s advice an independent FRICS surveyor was engaged to prepare a section 18(1) valuation to establish the diminution in the reversionary interest.  Not unsurprisingly that surveyor confirmed Dr. Antino’s position that there was no diminution.  Therefore, there was no legal claim because there was no reduction to the landlord’s reversion.

 The landlord was then invited to settle on the basis of paying the tenants costs including the costs of the section 18(1) valuation surveyors’ fees to bring the matter to a conclusion.  That invitation went unanswered.  The property was handed back in November, the landlord has received a nil contribution.  The landlord has now closed his file and had to pay his own surveyors fees and legal expenses. Had they accepted the Calder bank offer they would have made a small profit on the situation. If you need advice on dilapidations claims call Dr Antino on 01245 492495 or email him on dr.antino@apaproperty.com    www.apaproperty.com

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 Party wall misuse/abuse

This follows my LAST  blog having thought things could not get more bizarre this gentleman outshines himself.The BOS having taken a unilateral decision that the Act does not apply bec ...

Continue Reading

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

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