Andrew Schofield FRICS FPTS Director of Schofield’s Surveyors declares he is ‘INCAPABLE of acting!’

Andrew Schofield FRICS FPTS Director of Schofield’s Surveyors declares to his appointing owner ‘Pursuant to s10(5) of the Act and your letter of appointment dated 9th July 2024 I hereby declare myself incapable of acting.’. Rather bizarre… I am not aware of how anyone can declare themselves ‘incapable pursuant to s10(5) of the Act or their letter of appointment???

Despite his post nominals he does not appear to understand that section 10(5) does not itself create a power of withdrawal but rather sets out the consequence if incapacity exists, he did not clarify any factual or professional grounds upon which he considered himself incapable of continuing to act.

Alan Bright FRICS FFPWS MCI Arb of Alan Bright Associates131E High Street Brentwood EssexCM14 4RZ declares he is INCAPABLE!

Alan Bright FRICS FFPWS  MCI Arb of Alan Bright Associates Director of the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors has declared himself incapable on two different projects and refused to respond on a third…. he has given no grounds but declared wholesale that he is incapable of acting as a third surveyor.

Dear Mr Kyson, Very sorry but I deem myself incapable and in accordance with section 10(9) of the Act the appointed surveyors may select another to take my place

His statement that he is “incapable in accordance with Section 10(9)” is misconceived. Section 10(9) does not authorise a Third Surveyor to declare themselves incapable in accordance with s10(9)c. Section 10(9)c of the Act does not create incapacity, but merely describes the consequence if incapacity exists.

‘Dear Mr Kyson, I regret to advise you that I deem myself incapable and appointed surveyors are at liberty under section 10 (9) to appoint another to take my place.’

Adjudication win

Lee was asked to assist in an adjudication…with only 1 day left to respond against a £400k claim…. Feb 2022

“Hi Lee

Fabulous news in that we have just heard that the adjudication has gone in our favour.

Really appreciate you helping us out at such short notice and giving us your expert opinion.”

— Kisiel Group

Lee Kyson has been asked to sit on the Standards committee of the FMB

Lee has been asked to sit on the Standards Committee of the Federation of Master Builders to help deal with complaints against builders should they arise for any breaches of the Code of Conduct. So may possibly post more following the next meeting.

Court of Appeal grants permission to appeal the Shah v Kyson & Power decision

Lee Kyson, as a litigant in person has been granted by the Court of Appeal to appeal the decision of Eyres J in the Shah v Kyson & Power case,

The case was heard at County Court level and the decision of HHJ Parfitt was appealed to the Queens Bench division of the High Court. The appeal was unsuccessful so Lee sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal which was granted. The Court of Appeal will only grant permission to appeal if they believe there is a real prospect of success and/or it is in the public interest.

High Court decision erroneous? Lee believes it was.

High Court dismisses appeal in Shah v Power & Kyson [2022] EWHC 209 (QB) is the Act now rendered superfluous?

The High Court handed down its judgement on Friday 11th February 2022. Rather disappointingly the appeal was dismissed. Personally I do not agree with the judgement and cannot see how a building owner, apparently not wishing to exercise his rights under the Act but does so anyway can decide that the Act doesn’t apply.

I have had many phone calls from people from all over the country waiting for this decision in the hope that the appeal would be allowed. Unfortunately most of these people will now have to live with the damage caused by their neighbouring building owner who caused damage and had refused to comply with the Act, simply because they do not have the funds to pursue the matter.

There is much reference to the surveyors / adjoining owner ‘unilaterally imposing the Act on the building owner’, despite the fact that the Act is already in force and places obligations on the building owner the moment he wishes to do notifiable works and there is an adjoining owner. I expressed my view to the court that the Act was already in force and as surveyors we merely applied the Act, we did not unilaterally impose it on the building owner but this seems to have been glossed over.

I find the ‘no notice - no Act’ scenario rather difficult to accept as it is the Act that places obligations upon the building owner to serve notice, therefore the Act is in force and is to be complied with.

There is no mechanism that disengages the Act if the building owner does not serve notice.

You can read the judgement here https://www.lkbc.co.uk/shah-v-power-kyson-appeal-dismissed

Stuart Frame makes a third surveyor award... then a draft addendum award.... then serves it by email - contrary to his 'opinions' supplied to others.

The adjoining owner’s surveyor made a referral to Stuart Frame, the selected third surveyor. Mr Frame then determined matters that were not in dispute… he then made a signed and dated draft addendum award in order to correct some of his errors…. I believe Mr Frame cherry picked from the Act in other matters to suit his own agenda that differ from what he awarded.

please feel free to comment and to read about it here

Justin Burns & Alistair Redler believe that they have a third owners' surveyor...

I served an ex parte award. The award was not appealed by either of the owners. Justin Burns made a referral to the third surveyor Alistair Redler…. they made an award which made provision for the building owner to pay the third owner’s surveyors’ costs… really? JB enforced his purported fees against a pensioner in the Magistrates Court…. read the award and feel free to make any comments here

HHJ Lethem in the Central London County Court upholds third surveyor award that the adjoining cannot request what health & safety provisions will be put in place.

Comments are invited in relation to this award which you can find by clicking on Alan Bright award…

Permission to appeal HHJ Parfitt's decision in Shah v Kyson & Power

As of 4th November 2021 we have been granted permission to appeal HHJ Parfitt’s decision regarding ‘Shah’ in the High Court.

Hopefully the court will see fit and overturn the decision ‘no notice - no Act’. This will enable surveyors to proceed with matters under the Act and afford the adjoining owners the protection intended. A correct decision will ensure that rogue building owners won’t be able to run rough shod over adjoining owners with limited resources.

This is being heard in the High Court as it was not an appeal of an award. The award was challenged in the County Court under a Part 8 claim, therefore, the appeal of the County Court decision is made in the High Court.