Putney Vale Estate LON/00BJ/LSC/2019/0447
DECISION
[28]Taking each item in the order in which they were dealt with at the hearing: Scaffolding[29]It is plain to the tribunal that Mr Aker's arguments in relation to the scaffolding were diminished once it was known that it had been a fixed sum in the contract. The fact that the scaffolding was in place for a longer period of time than was necessary whilst annoying for leaseholders did not affect the price that they had to pay for the works. The scaffolding costs are allowed in full. Asbestos survey[30]This sum is allowable in full as it was not challenged by Mr Akers at the hearing. Coping stones[31]The evidence in relation to the coping stones was limited. It is not clear whether the coping stones that had been installed were defective throughout the estate. The photographs produced by Mr Akers appeared to show that there wasn't a sufficient drip for the coping stones to work properly. However as indicated it may be that this was isolated issue. The fact remains that the Clerk of Works and the contractor had signed off the work. The Respondents would be well advised to investigate the potential problem and determine whether it is in existence throughout the estate. The Tribunal did not have any sufficient evidence to ascertain whether it was a general defect and therefore on a balance of probabilities the costs are allowed in full. Brickwork[32]It was compellingly clear as emphasised by the Respondents and their Counsel that the cost of the brickwork was part of an overall tender which was successful. The contractor who tendered for the work allowed a certain sum for the brickwork. Mr Akers relied on Spons. This is guidance and has limited value because it is not dealing with market prices. The contractors offered a price which included an amount for the brickwork and the tender was accepted. The Tribunal is not willing to interfere with the tender price and considers that overall the price was reasonable including the cost of the brickwork. There was a dispute about the number of bricks that had been repaired or replaced. The Tribunal is not in a position as there simply was insufficient evidence to resolve this dispute. The Tribunal is however satisfied that the clerk of works carried out an inspection and was satisfied with the work that had taken place. The costs are allowed in full. Centaur Waterproofing[33]Mr Akers made a serious allegation about the waterproofing works saying that they were illegal and a fire risk. Both parties made written submissions after the tribunal hearing in relation to this allegation which had been raised only during the hearing itself. Mr Akers said that the waterproofing did not comply with the relevant building regulations. The Respondents in detailed submissions denied this. The regulations were The Building (Amendment) regulations 2018 (SI 2018/1230) which came into force following the Grenfell fire in order to ensure fire safety in blocks of flats. The Respondents said that these regulations did not apply to the subject works .[34]The Tribunal accepts the Respondents’ submissions on this. The works involved were works of repair and were not Building Works as defined by the 2010 regulations and would not therefore be covered by the 2018 amendment regs. The works did not comprise the erection or extension of the buildings. In addition, the Tribunal accepts the Respondents’ argument that the buildings were not sufficiently high to be caught by 2018 regulations in any event. Further the works were started prior to the commencement of the 2018 regulations.[35]The Tribunal were concerned that Mr Akers was willing to make the serious allegations he did without any proper basis in particular the Tribunal do not accept that the Respondents’ officers deliberately sought to mislead the Tribunal in any way. Quite the contrary the Tribunal found the Respondents’ officers to be extremely helpful in providing information about the works that took place. The Tribunal did not consider a further submission made by Mr Akers on 27th August 2021 because there has to be some finality to the process and he did not have permission to make further submissions.[36]For the reasons given the cost of the waterproofing works are allowed save that there should be a reduction of 20% of to reflect the fact that there is a problem of ponding identified by Mr Akers which will need to be resolved. Section 20 C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985[37]The tribunal does exercise its discretion pursuant to section 20 C and order that the Respondents are prevented from recovering the costs of the proceedings from the leaseholders’ service charges. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Akers made efforts to reach settlement with the local authority but his efforts were not reciprocated. In addition, the tribunal was assisted greatly by Mr Akers’ arguments notwithstanding the fact that he was largely unsuccessful.[38]The Tribunal gives thanks also to Mr Kingston-Splatt for his clear written and oral argument. Judge Shepherd October 2021 ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL Appealing against the tribunal’s decisions[1]A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional tribunal office which has been dealing with the case.[2]The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional tribunal office within 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties.[3]If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.[4]The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. All applications for permission to appeal will be considered on the papers[5]Any application to stay the effect of the decision must be made at the same time as the application for permission to appeal.