Our householder client had commissioned a design and awarded a contract for £241,000 for a high specification extension and refurbishment. The contractor fell into delay and eventually ceased work. He submitted a final account for £102,000 more than the contract sum.
Metcalfe Briggs Surveyors’ client had commissioned an office refurbishment to a Central London investment property but were not satisfied that a fair and reasonable final account had been arrived at with the contractor.
A building dispute had arisen between a major housebuilder and the owners of a newly purchased prestige, high value detached house. Metcalfe Briggs Surveyors were instructed by the owners to assist in the resolution of a number of issues. Whilst the house was of very considerable size, to a very high specification and standard of design, it was let down by finishing.
Metcalfe Briggs Surveyors was asked to help clients to avoid a Local Authority Closing Order. A central London Victorian terraced building, converted into flats many years ago, had fallen into serious disrepair externally and the original stone staircase internally had part collapsed. The Local Authority served a Dangerous Structures Notice and subsequently initiated proceedings to obtain a Closing Order. The landlord was also pursuing possession of the building under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
Metcalfe Briggs Surveyors was appointed as Single Joint Expert in a dispute being heard in the County Court, involving an office refurbishment. A Single Joint Expert acts on behalf of both parties in dispute, acting impartially to consider all material facts, in his area of expertise. He delivers to the Court an independent report with a duty that the facts stated in the report are true and that the opinions expressed are correct.
This case involves a Grade II* Listed Building. Metcalfe Briggs Survyors’ client was sympathetically refurbishing the property which had been purchased in a neglected condition when the Local Authority conservation architect intervened. Despite the fact that the works were repair and did not need Listed Building Consent, the conservation architect acted in an obstructive and vexatious way, effectively preventing work from continuing, and leaving the property vulnerable to further damage and decay.