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 because his notices are void (his words) and therefore the party wall surveyor’s jurisdiction ends, is fundamentally wrong.

When asked to explain why the notices are void there was silence.

In circumstances where a BOS serves an invalid notice, or the BO decides not to progress with the works, the surveyors jurisdiction remains to allow them to resolve any outstanding issues arising out of the service of the notice, for example, the surveyors fees or as in this case damage caused to the AO by the BO’s works which started post (after) the service of notice and creation of the tribunal of surveyors.

This is a concept that surveyors do not seem to understand and this flows from section 10(12) and (13). Then about 7 days after the BO had claimed that the notices were void he served fresh notices and this is where it becomes even more bizarre because the fresh notices are exactly the same as the original notices. The only difference being the date.

The drawings attached to the notices are the same as the drawings attached to the original notices.

Really!!! If the first notices are void then surely the second set of notices would be void or perhaps that is just too simplistic an assessment for this gentleman to understand.

Quite astonishingly he served the notices on the AO despite the fact that the AO’s surveyor (myself) letter of appointment states that I am authorised to receive all future notices but interestingly, copies them to my office manager (not me) by email.

In the email to the AO, the BOS asks the AO to kindly appoint me as an agreed surveyor, if not would you appoint someone else.

This is an RICS member and a member of the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors both organisations that promote themselves as having very high standards of training and experience and knowledge in the Act.

Astonishing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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]

RICS Surveyors abuse or do not understand dilapidations

The RICS promotes themselves as an organization that “everything we do is designed to effect positive change in the built environment”. Given this statement it is not unreasonable to expect their members to understand the very subjects that they ...

Why fight a party wall claim for damages? Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from the County Court at Central London CA-2023-000624 and CA-2023-000626.

Building Owners liability for damagesThe moral of the story isWhere there is a liability to pay ...