20 Apr 2017
Our Head of Alternative Dispute Resolution Research and Development Martin Burns explains why it is important to resolve dilapidations disputes quickly, cheaply and early.
The ultimate venue for the resolution of a dilapidations dispute is a court of law, but the litigation process is not without pain. It costs money to go to court, perhaps more than the amount in dispute.
The result is almost always unpredictable, and the landlord and tenant will undoubtedly forfeit control of the process at some point to lawyers and the judge.
Typical phases of a dilapidations dispute can be:
- At the end of a tenancy or lease, a landlord considers that the property has fallen into decay. It is in such a state of disrepair that the landlord wants to compel the tenant to pay for the cost of restoring it.
- The landlord prepares a schedule of dilapidations. This document, inter alia, itemises the areas of alleged disrepair, recommends specific remedial works and includes estimates of the costs for the works.
- The tenant questions some or all of the alleged dilapidations or the amount of the costs that the landlord has estimated for repairs.
Alternatives to litigation
Most surveyors working in this area will be aware of legal obligations under the Dilapidations Pre-action Protocol. This procedural law codifies requirements for parties considering legal action to communicate with each other openly and transparently, to try to resolve their differences without the need for the courts to intervene, and to explore and use alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
In 2014, following work by the RICS Dilapidations ADR Working Party, which comprised surveyors and lawyers experienced in property and dilapidations, RICS launched an ADR service to resolve dilapidations disputes that would otherwise be on their way to court. The service has been built around a process known as independent expert determination.
Expert determination service
The expert determination service is well structured, is relatively quick and costs significantly less than litigation. It enables parties to opt for a decision by someone who has immense subject matter expertise and is highly experienced in dilapidations matters, rather than by a judge, who knows a lot about the law but perhaps less about property matters.
The parties are also able to decide the timetable and agenda for the process. They can make submissions to the expert, who will fully understand technical issues that may otherwise need to be explained to a judge. The process results in a binding decision, which will negate the need for further legal action.
Small claims settlements
But what about the untold number of lower-value claims? Many such claims come across the desks of specialist chartered surveyors who routinely handle dilapidations matters, and will never end up in court — or expert determination — because it would not be cost-effective to go to court, or there is little or no appetite on the part of the landlord to go down that particular route. There should perhaps be a way for parties to resolve such issues cheaply and quickly too.
For this reason, the working party is currently scoping an additional ADR service that parties can use to provide prompt and inexpensive resolution. This service will offer early analyses of claims and support parties by enabling useful and open conversations about possible solutions. It will offer fully reasoned recommendations by an impartial expert in the subject matter, to achieve sensible and mutually acceptable settlements.
This is an edited extract of an article which appeared in the May–June issue of the Building Surveying Journal
Only Registered Members and Registered site users can comment on our content.
Please use the log in button to sign in and leave your comment.
Read the next page in this section