APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

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 Forensic and Expert Witnesses.

 

It is with great pride that Dr Antino’s further expertise has been recognised in the field of both Construction and Engineering Law.

 

The Award follows his seminal paper on “Is Adjudication suitable for dilapidations disputes” as published in the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) Journal November 2023 issue 89.4.

 

https://apaproperty.com/blog/2024/01/05/is-adjudication-appropriate-for-resolving-a-dilapidation-dispute

 

Dr Antino has long held the view that the historic approach adopted by landlords with respect to dilapidations claims has been fundamentally wrong and seen as an opportunity to obtain a “windfall cash payment” for alleged liabilities that do not legitimately arise under any aspect of the lease.

 

This approach has been predominantly advanced by chartered surveyors who have little understanding and indeed no proper training as to what constitutes a dilapidation and/or indeed the principles that exist both at common and statutory law to prevent a landlord’s aggressive approach to obtaining windfall payments.

 

In most cases, chartered surveyors fail to understand that a claim of dilapidations is a legal claim for an actual loss incurred by the landlord.  No loss no claim.

 

Attempts to limit dilapidations can be found under section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 but surveyors still overlook or simply do not understand the principles of that statutory legislation.

 

In 2023 Dr Antino was instructed in two particularly large dilapidations claims against the landlords.  One claim was more than £350,000, the other more than £600,000 for internal repairing liabilities only.  Other cases are ongoing.

 

The schedules prepared by the landlord’s surveyors included items such as reinstatement works granted under a licence to alter. These are not a dilapidation claim element and fall under a completely different repairing/reinstatement liability.

 

Furthermore, the amounts allocated against various alleged disrepair very seldom if ever reasonable a true reflection of the actual costs to do the works.

 

In both situations above, the landlords adopted a very aggressive approach on the misunderstanding that the lease says that the tenants should pay their costs when engaging surveyors, solicitors etc.  This is fundamentally wrong; it is only reasonable costs and if the claim and/or elements of it are unreasonable then the costs are reduced.

 

The landlords eagerly assume that they do not have to pay anything or if they did, that they would recover it from the tenant, but that is not the case.  Just because the landlord’s surveyor says that the dilapidations have a value of “X” does not mean that it is realistic, accurate and/or indeed true reflection of the landlord’s loss.

 

Because of these strategies adopted by the landlords, Dr Antino has advised clients that they should make an application to the CIArb and have the dispute resolved through Adjudication.

 

For those that are not familiar with the Adjudication procedures, this places a limit on each party that they are not entitled to recover their costs incurred in the Adjudication but also protects them from costs from the other side.

 

You can imagine the sharp intake of breath from landlords who are aghast Dr Antino’s approach and potentially having to spend money to pursue a claim, (whether they are right or wrong) without the right to recover their costs.  Hence the reason why Dr Antino wrote his paper and submitted this to the CIArb for publication.

 

Dr Antino’s approach has not yet been challenged in Court, but the approach adopted by Dr Antino has brought landlords to the table to negotiate realistic settlements.  In recent dilapidations towards the end of 2021/22 and early 2023 Dr Antino was able to negotiate up to 60% reduction of the alleged dilapidations claims thus avoiding both litigation and Adjudication.

 

It is Dr Antino’s opinion that the tide has changed; landlords cannot continue to see dilapidations as a get rich quick or windfall scheme which is fundamentally wrong against all principles of contract law.

 

If a person does not suffer a true and quantifiable loss then they cannot claim for something that they have not lost.

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 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

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

Court of Appeal Ken Power & Lee Kyson v Raheel Shah 2023

I have now received the approved judgement. I remain amazed that these two surveyors Lee Kyson https://www.lkbc.co.uk/ and Ken Power http://www.partywallmatters1996.co.uk continued to fight this case. ...

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