Case No. HT-11-503

With Brit Inns’ Claim a) Introduction 59.The insurers in the main action are seeking to recover, by way of a subrogated claim, the monies which they paid out to Brit Inns. The pleaded claim for material damage in these proceedings is £355,070, with a further £18,745 in relation to the uninsured losses, which has now been abandoned. In my view, there are numerous difficulties with this claim. The QS experts are agreed that, as a minimum, around £100,000 of that sum should simply not have been paid. In the context of an insurance claim that is a massive reduction: something like 25% of the amount actually paid by the insurers is now agreed (as a minimum) to have been wrongfully paid over. That immediately raises serious doubts as to the reliability and recoverability of the claim as a whole.60.The main reasons why the original claim was grossly exaggerated, and then not properly investigated by the insurers and/or their loss adjusters are set out below. b) No Fixed Scope 61.For the reasons noted in paragraphs 23-26 above, one of the fundamental difficulties with the insurance claim was the absence of any record of the works actually carried out. There was no specification or schedule of works, or even a basic inventory. It is therefore impossible to say with certainty, even now, precisely what was done and, perhaps more importantly, what was not done. The absence of any clear fixed scope of work has now rebounded on the insurers as they struggle to prove the subrogated claim against the defendants. c) Inadequate Invoices 62.The inadequacies in the invoices in this case are too numerous to identify comprehensively. The most important were these. First, the invoices failed to identify with any sort of precision what work was the subject of the claim in the invoice. Secondly, if the work was carried out pursuant to particular instructions, those instructions were not identified or listed. Thirdly, no details were given as to rates or any other way in which the sum claimed in the invoice might be broken down and valued. Most of the invoices are one or two line claims for relatively large sums of money with a generic description of what was carried out. They are almost impossible to analyse retrospectively.63.I will take one invoice as typical of so many inadequate invoices on which the material damage claim relied. The invoice of 23 October 2007 from G.B.M Limited, heating, plumbing and gas engineers, was addressed to Mr Barber at The Oak. It was Invoice 40. The invoice then went on: “REF.THE OAK, TEDDINGTONTOTAL: £11000.00PLUS VAT AT 17.5%: £1925.00TOTAL COST: £12925.00”64.It was quite impossible to work out from this invoice what work was done, when it was done, and how or why the sum claimed was £11,000 before VAT. The large blank space in the middle of the invoice suggests the possibility that some such information was provided and then blanked out: certain other documents provided by Brit Inns have been redacted. But whether the invoice was blanked out prior to disclosure, or always contained this complete lack of detail may not matter; the key point is that the invoice – like so many in this case – is inadequate and incapable of sensible evaluation by the defendants who are now being asked to pay for it. d) Wrongly Claimed Invoices 65.As Mr Thomas, the defendant’s expert quantity surveyor, properly accepted in cross-examination, the mere fact that the invoices were inadequate does not automatically mean that the sums claimed in them are exaggerated or overstated. But the inadequacies of so many of the invoices must now be seen against the experts’ agreement that numerous of them were irrecoverable because they did not relate to remedial works properly undertaken as a result of the second inundation. Time and again, following the investigative work carried out by Mr Thomas, invoices which were accepted by Mr Greig in the insurance claim, and originally accepted by Mr Woodall, Brit Inns’ expert quantity surveyor, were shown to relate to completely separate matters and were thus irrecoverable. 66.In section 2 of his report, Mr Thomas identifies invoices which, in his words, show “items that have succeeded in getting past the above level of scrutiny [the insurers and Mr Woodall] to find their way into the claim.” These include invoices for works which were not undertaken at The Oak at all; works which formed no part of the basement; works which were carried out before the first, let alone the second, inundation; works which were carried out after The Oak was up and running again as a business; items of claim for which no documentation was provided; items which were plainly betterment; invoices for works which were not complete at the time of the second inundation; invoices for work that was caused by the first and not the second inundation; items that were not building related; items included in the claim which Mr Greig said he had adjusted; duplications; and invoices which lacked sufficient detail. It is these legitimate complaints, raised by Mr Thomas and now accepted by Mr Woodall, which have led to a reduction of at least £100,000 from the amount originally paid out to Brit Inns.67.It is worth taking two examples of invoices which remain the subject of Brit Inns’ pleaded claim in these actions but which were plainly irrecoverable. It is, in part, necessary to do this in order to demonstrate the sheer amount of investigative work that Mr Thomas has had to do in order to demonstrate the irrecoverability of so much of this claim.68.The first is an invoice dated 23 March 2007 from Aston Cord Limited, who appear to be plumbers. The invoice is made out to Brit Inns Limited at the address at 172 High Street, Teddington. The work done was the supply and installation of a new fan and air vents. The cost was £575.75. Mr Thomas queried this invoice because there was no gas boiler in the basement. Mr Penny’s witness statement supported the claim by saying that this was provided to aid the drying out of the basement following the second flood. Mr Thomas therefore telephoned Aston Cord, as set out in his expert’s report, and was told that their records made plain that this work was undertaken on a gas boiler at Mr Barber’s houseboat at Taggs Island, Hampton. Despite this, in Mr Barber’s third witness statement, this invoice was expressly supported as part of the claim against the defendants. Mr Barber said that this work related to a temporary extractor ventilator system for the basement. It was only when Mr Barber came to give oral evidence that he finally accepted that this item should never have been claimed, let alone paid out by the insurers.69.Two important matters therefore flow from this evidence. First, this item of claim was not made inadvertently: it was not only included in the original claim itself, but it was expressly the subject of written evidence (which turned out to be wholly untrue) within the signed statements of both Mr Barber and Mr Penny. That obviously raises questions as to the seriousness with which either man took the declaration of truth at the end of their statement, and the credibility of their evidence generally. Secondly, it must be noted that the truth had to be discovered by Mr Thomas, and only then by actually telephoning Aston Cord to find out what it was that they had done. On the face of the invoice, there was nothing to indicate that this work had been carried out anywhere other than The Oak. There was no mention of the houseboat at all. The explanation for this appeared to be, from Mr Barber’s cross-examination, that he had deliberately put this down as a business expense in order to claim the VAT on it. 70.The second example is similar. Reflex-Rol provided an invoice to Mr Barber at The Oak for the manufacture and supply of insulating materials in the sum of £2,514.50. It appears that, at Mr Barber’s instruction, the invoice was headed “Ref: The Oak”. Again it appears that this was for material for window coverings for Mr Barber’s houseboat and was, as he accepted, nothing to do with the business of The Oak. Again, Mr Barber accepted that he wanted to put these through as a business expense so that he could claim the VAT. 71.Accordingly, for the reasons which I have given, these invoices, and the numerous other invoices like them, make only too clear the wholly unreliable nature of the original claim by Brit Inns to their insurers and the equally unreliable nature of Mr Greig’s adjustment, because it included so many items which, on analysis, the experts have agreed were irrecoverable. More worryingly, the attempt to support these claims in the witness statements of Mr Barber and Mr Penny, by way of material that was simply untrue, casts a major doubt on the general credibility of both men. e) The Absence Of Evidence Of Payment 72.The problems with the invoices are compounded by the absence of any proper evidence as to whether or not they were paid. Of course, in a normal case, the court will usually be only too willing to give a claimant the benefit of the doubt on a topic like this, so that where, say, a contractor rendered 5 invoices and payment can be evidenced for 4 of them, a complaint that the fifth payment has not been evidenced is unlikely to find favour with the court. But this case is not normal in this respect either. I have set out, at paragraphs 27-31 above, the almost complete absence of any evidence of payment by Brit Inns in connection with the invoices. 73.This is not just a technical gap in the evidence. Because the invoices are inadequate, it is perfectly possible that some were subsumed by others, or became part of a separate and later invoice. Duplication of invoices, but not payment, in such circumstances is quite likely. The problems with adequacy and credibility mean that the court cannot, without more, assume that each and every claimed invoice was paid. f) Absence Of Evidence From The Contractors 74.A number of these unanswered questions (What work was actually done? What was actually paid?) could have been answered by the contractors themselves. However, Brit Inns chose not to adduce any evidence from any of the contractors. Instead, it was Mr Thomas who spoke to a number of them on the telephone, and extrapolated answers to at least some of these questions from what he was told.75.Although he used some of Mr Thomas’ figures in his own calculations (see below), Mr Plewman criticised Mr Thomas because he was relying on what he was told by the contractors over the telephone about what they had done, sometimes years after the event. That criticism ignores the fact that Brit Inns could have obtained much better evidence from these contractors but chose not to. Thus, however unsatisfactory it may be, these conversations represent the best evidence about what happened, because they contain more details than the invoices. And that also provides an answer to the criticism that sometimes Mr Thomas’ figures were calculated without any reference to the relevant contractors, because they were not obtainable. Mr Thomas can hardly be criticised because he was not able to fill all the gaps in the material provided by Brit Inns. g) Comparison With Original Fit-Out Costs 76.I have already made the point that the claimed reinstatement fit-out costs of almost £400,000 on one floor only should have rung alarm bells at the time, because that was considerably more than the round figure of £300,000 relating to the original fit-out works across two floors. Mr Woodall agreed that, if he had been the loss adjuster, he would have looked at the original fit-out costs for comparison purposes. Indeed, he laid some stress on that as a prudent and proper thing to do. For reasons which were unclear, he did not do the same exercise as the expert instructed by Brit Inns, despite his duty to the court. Mr Greig also failed to do this comparison, although this was again something which, certainly at one stage during the adjustment, he seemed to have in mind. Again, the broad comparison between the two figures demonstrates that, in Mr Penny’s words, “something has gone wrong somewhere”. h) Summary 77.I find that what ‘went wrong’ was this: the claim for the cost of the reinstatement fit-out works was wholly exaggerated because, not only was the workscope not plain and the sums to be paid (and actually paid) to the contractors unclear, but also numerous claims were made for works which were nothing to do with The Oak, or the remedial works in the basement which were the defendants’ responsibility. Against the background of those difficulties with the claim as presented, I turn to the dispute between the QS experts. 3.3 The Dispute Between The Experts 78.The essence of the dispute between Mr Thomas, the expert quantity surveyor for the defendants and Mr Woodall, the expert quantify surveyor for Brit Inns, was simple. Wherever he had a concern about the sum claimed for a particular element of the work, Mr Thomas sought to obtain further information as to what work was actually done, and then attempted a re-measurement of that element of the work in order to arrive at a reasonable figure. It was a bottom-up approach necessitated, he said, by the inadequacy of the underlying material. 79.Mr Woodall, on the other hand, adopted a completely different approach. He did not undertake any valuation exercise himself. Instead, as he explained to me during his cross-examination, he accepted all the invoices at face value, save for those which, in his discussions with Mr Thomas, he had discounted. He said that his approach to the invoices was “If I couldn’t see a good reason to not accept them then I accepted them.” 80.For the reasons set out below, I am in no doubt that, on the evidence, Mr Thomas’ approach is to be preferred. 81.First, Mr Thomas’ approach involved a degree of quantity surveying expertise. It involved an independent valuation of the work done. Mr Woodall’s approach, which accepted at face value the evidence put forward by Brit Inns, and thus the reliability of the invoices, involved no quantity surveying at all. In one sense, because it relied on a judgment about the integrity or reliability of each invoice, it might be said to be an (entirely innocent) attempt to usurp the court’s own function. Moreover, Mr Woodall’s acceptance was itself based on a flawed assumption; he said that he understood that the invoices had been scrutinised/verified before they were paid. As I have found above, there was no such system of scrutiny or verification of the invoices.82.Secondly, in Mr Woodall’s own words, “Mr Thomas’ method of doing it is a recognised method of valuing a building job.” There can be no doubt, therefore, that Mr Thomas has used a proper methodology. Mr Woodall has not used any methodology as such.83.Thirdly, not only did Mr Woodall accept Mr Thomas’ methodology, but he also confirmed that he did not have a criticism of the actual manner in which Mr Thomas had undertaken each of his calculations. He said in terms: “I don’t have a criticism of the execution of that method.” 84.Fourthly, Mr Woodall accepted that it was necessary to undertake an assessment of the value of the works and that finding out what the works should have cost was one way of doing that. That is what Mr Thomas has done but which he has not. Mr Woodall accepted that measurement of the work, at least in some instances, could have been undertaken very easily. He said that he had not undertaken that exercise because he concluded that it was not needed. This chimed with his later evidence that, although he contemplated undertaking the measurement exercise he did not do so because, as he put it, ‘the invoices carried equal weight to a measurement and rates’.85.That approach, of course, completely misses the point that, in the present case, the invoices, because of their many inadequacies, were not of equal weight to the recognised quantity surveying methodology using measurement and rates. For the reasons which I have given above, the invoices were wholly unreliable. Indeed, Mr Woodall accepted that the invoices were unreliable and said that the absence of proper detail concerned him. He seemed to contradict himself when, later in his evidence, he agreed that, in order to ascertain reasonableness, he could have undertaken an exercise it in a way similar to that done by Mr Thomas. As he put it, “If the tools to enable me to do that had been provided then I would have been able to do it much better, much easier for certain.” “The tools” to which he referred were proper records of the work done and sums paid. On his own case, he did not have those proper records and yet he was still willing to rely on the inadequate records (the invoices) so as to avoid doing a re-measurement. I do not accept that as a reasonable approach. 86.Fifthly, Mr Woodall accepted that circumstances would arise when he would have undertaken a measurement. He accepted that there would ‘come a time’ when he would have to do something more than merely accept the invoices at face value. He seemed to suggest that this might depend on the amount of the claim. He agreed that if the claim had been for £1 million, he would have looked at it “in closer detail”. It seems to me wrong in principle to say that, whether or not it was reasonable to re-measure, in a case where the records were so poor, should depend on the degree of exaggeration of the amount of the claim. 87.Sixthly, there was Mr Woodall’s complete failure to have regard to the cost of the original fit-out works. As noted above, Mr Thomas identified the cost of the original fit-out works in order to confirm his view that the sums now claimed were exaggerated. Mr Woodall agreed that, as a loss adjuster, he would have looked at the original costs and made a comparison and he did not clearly explain why he had not done so as the expert. Indeed he did not even ask for the original fit-out documents and did not know what the figures were. This was despite the fact that, as he himself conceded, he could have done a similar exercise to Mr Thomas which could at least have formed a starting point for comparison purposes.88.On that point I should add that, although there were a number of suggestions from Brit Inns that the fit-out works were generally more difficult second time around, there was no credible evidence to support that assertion. None of the contractors who were there in 2006 and again in 2007, and who were therefore perfectly placed to have a view on that, gave any evidence at all. From the documentary evidence and the photographs, save for the need to accommodate the Delta Drain, which was not a particularly unusual construction feature, I can see no reason why the reinstatement fit-out works were more difficult following the structural works in 2007. I note the agreed evidence of Mr Garry as to the work done prior to the reinstatement fit-out works, but I reject the notion that, in some way, those works were particularly difficult or onerous, whether compared to the original fit-out works or at all.89.Finally on the dispute between the experts, I have concluded that Mr Thomas’ approach is to be preferred because, in his closing submissions, Mr Plewman properly accepted Mr Thomas’ valuation for many of the disputed items in the material damage claim. It was a hallmark of the realism with which Mr Plewman presented his final submissions that, in relation to many of the disputed items, he accepted that, on the evidence, Mr Thomas had arrived at a figure in a way which was likely to be more accurate and more reliable than the figure produced by the relevant invoices. 90.For all these reasons, therefore, it seems to me that Mr Thomas’ approach is to be preferred to that of Mr Woodall. Mr Thomas had undertaken a proper independent valuation of the works because of the problems with the information which had been provided. Mr Woodall, although keenly aware of those problems, had accepted the invoices at face value, provided only that no good reason had been identified to reject the particular invoice. That approach reversed the burden of proof to an unacceptable degree, and made it incumbent upon the defendants (and therefore Mr Thomas) to rootle back through the invoices to find all the ones that were exaggerated or irrelevant. The fact that Mr Thomas has performed this task with great energy and perseverance should not disguise the fact that he should not have been obliged to undertake it in the first place.91.Notwithstanding these conclusions, I do accept Mr Plewman’s secondary submission that, whatever view I came to on the proper general approach, each item in the material damage claim has to be looked at individually. Thus, if there are heads of claim where, despite the court’s reservations, the particular invoices produce a figure which, on their face, appears closer to a reasonable valuation than that produced by Mr Thomas, then that ought to form the basis of the assessment. 3.4 Conclusions As To Principle In This Case 92.The fact that the works have been carried out and sums paid out by the insurer to Brit Inns in consequence is not decisive of the issue of reasonable cost, but it is of some evidential weight. However, the sheer scale and range of the problems with the claim as submitted to the insurer mean that it is generally quite impossible to accept the invoices, without more, to support the claim. That view is compounded by the concerns I have as to the credibility of at least some of the evidence supporting Brit Inns’ claim in these proceedings.93.In general terms, the retrospective valuations of Mr Thomas are to be preferred. On the facts of this case, a retrospective valuation of what was done, and the application of standard rates and prices to that work, will form the best way of arriving at a reasonable figure for the disputed element of work. But, depending on the facts, the invoiced sum may, on analysis, constitute the appropriate figure for assessment purposes. With that approach in mind, I then turn to the individual elements of the material damage claim. 4. THE SUBROGATED CLAIMS FOR MATERIAL DAMAGE/ASSESSMENT 4.1 Overview 94.The claim can be broken down as follows:95.The item marked with the * reflects the experts’ joint statement. However there was a live issue between the parties throughout the trial as to whether some £28,000 odd of that amount should be allowed back in to the Brit Inns’ claim. That is dealt with in Section 4.4 below. 4.2 Items Agreed to be Included in the Claim: £47,654.89 96.This figure, which relates to materials invoices, is agreed in the sum of £47,654.89. 4.3 Items Not Agreed: £197,186.25 a) Introduction 97.The claimant originally claimed just £197,186.25 in relation to this element (excluding the materials, dealt with above). The differences between the parties can be summarised in the following table:98.Accordingly, in relation to each disputed element of this claim, I set out below the relevant evidence and the conclusions that I have reached. All of these disputes relate to labour costs, because the material costs are agreed. b) Carpentry i) The Claim99.The claim was for £77,916.97 for carpentry labour. A large number of different carpenters appear to have provided invoices. Many of them come from SPL Marine and Smith & Co. Mr Woodall agreed to delete some invoices on the basis that they appeared to relate to work carried out after The Oak opened in October 2007. That reduced the claim to £72,911.37. It is the single largest displayed item in the material damage of claim. ii) The Problems With The Claim As Presented100.The general problems with the claim, of which the carpentry item was a good example, are discussed in paragraphs 59-71 above. The specific problems with the carpentry claim as presented are discussed in detail by Mr Thomas in his report at paragraphs 2.10.3-2.10.8. First, there is no detail provided of the work done. Mr Barber could not give such particulars, and Mr Penny said he could not remember the details of the work done and had nothing against which he could now check it. Given that there are already invoices from other contractors which were wrongly claimed (because the work was done on Mr Barber’s house boat), it is plainly a concern that SPL Marine are boat builders. With the telephone number and address deleted from their invoice, Mr Thomas was unable to contact them to find out in detail what they did. Mr Barber denied that the carpenters’ invoices concerned work carried out for his boat.101.Secondly, the large claim for carpenters in the reinstatement fit-out work needs to be contrasted with the costs of the original carpentry (on two floors) which were about £25,000. Mr Barber was able to offer no explanation as to how the costs had increased threefold for what was essentially the same work. Furthermore, such explanation as he did provide, such as his admission that the extensive panelling in the bar had not been installed at the time of the second inundation, meant that the labour cost for installing that panelling as part of the reinstatement fit-out (which is part of the claim) could not be properly recoverable against the defendants.102.Thirdly, as Mr Thomas made plain, it was impossible to work out what the carpenters were charging and/or were paid during the reinstatement fit-out works. For this reason alone, Mr Thomas said it was impossible to analyse the claim properly. 103.Fourthly, Mr Woodall agreed in his evidence that the carpentry claim as presented was too high, but – because of the way that he had approached the valuation – he was not able to come up with an alternative figure.104.Accordingly I find that, for the general reasons noted in paragraphs 78-91 above, and because of the specific deficiencies in the presentation of this carpentry claim, and the inadequacy of its supporting material (paragraphs 100-103 above), much of which was accepted by Mr Woodall, it is appropriate for the reasonable cost of this element of the work to be measured and valued pursuant to Mr Thomas’ methodology. By way of their closing submissions, it did not appear that Brit Inns ultimately disputed this conclusion.iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation105.Mr Thomas’ valuation is at Appendix D10 of his report. He arrived at a total of £15,000 in relation to this item, by calculating an estimated figure of 100 days in total for the carpenters and multiplying that by a rate of £150. iv) Modifications To Mr Thomas’ Figures 106.In cross-examination, it was pointed out to Mr Thomas that, as part of the original fit-out works, the carpenters were charging £175 per day and that, if it were reasonable to use the same carpenters (and nobody suggested otherwise) it could not be said that the £175 rate was unreasonable. Mr Thomas said that he could have got it done for £150 as the standard was not particularly high, but he fairly accepted that the rate of £175, although high, was not unreasonably high. He did not make the same concession in relation to a rate of £200 per day. In any event, it was not clear that such a rate was charged, let alone paid, for all of the carpentry work for the reinstatement fit-out.107.It seems to me that, on that basis of Mr Thomas’ concession, and giving Brit Inns the benefit of the doubt, it is appropriate to take a rate of £175 per day. That would increase Mr Thomas’ valuation to £17,500. 108.Although, as I have noted, Mr Woodall did not have any criticism to make of Mr Thomas’ calculations, and did not suggest that the 100 days was unreasonable, Mr Thomas was cross-examined about some of the matters which he had been obliged to assume for the purposes of his valuation. This is despite the fact that, in his closing submissions, Mr Plewman largely accepts Mr Thomas’ approach to this large head of claim, in preference to the pleaded claim based on the invoices.109.I deal briefly with the remaining carpentry items where a dispute remained. Mr Thomas excluded the re-hanging of the doors and door linings. This was because the evidence established that the doors and door linings had been removed following the first inundation. The evidence that any of the doors and door linings were re-hung after the first inundation and before the second was impossibly vague and unspecific. Moreover, such re-hanging would have made no sense given that, by the time of the second inundation, Brit Inns was still 6 or 7 weeks away from reopening. Accordingly, I find that Mr Thomas was right to exclude those matters from his valuation. 110.There was a suggestion that Mr Thomas should have allowed for work done upstairs as a result of damage to the oak doors on the ground floor which were used for access. There was, of course, no invoice or specific item of claim which related to such work. In my judgment, if the oak doors were damaged, it was because they were not properly protected during the reinstatement fit-out works carried out by or on behalf of Brit Inns. Therefore, without any specific evidence to the contrary, this was not an item which could be at the defendants’ account. 111.Finally, it is important to note that Mr Thomas’ valuation included for the work involved in screening the vertical Delta Drain. It excluded the partitions because a separate contractor, Tim Sweetman, carried out the ceiling work, and not the carpenters. His work has been allowed elsewhere. Mr Thomas did not regard Mr Sweetman’s figure as unreasonable for reinstalling the ceilings in the basement.112.Accordingly, subject to the increase in the rate to £175 per day, I find (as Mr Plewman ultimately accepted) that Mr Thomas’ valuation is the most accurate way of arriving at the reasonable cost of the carpentry in the reinstatement fit-out. It gives an adjusted figure of £17,500. In my judgment, that compares reasonably to the figure of £25,000 for both basement and ground floor in the original fit-out works. I therefore allow £17,500 against the carpentry claim.113.For completeness, I should say that, in my view, the claimed figure of £72,911.37 was always wholly unreasonable and irrecoverable. The invoices were wholly unreliable. The work allegedly done was unclear. It had not been shown that £72,911.37 had actually been paid. There was no explanation for how and why the sum claimed was three times the cost of the original works. The item should never have been advanced in this form and in this amount. c) Electricians i) The Claim114.The pleaded claim in relation to the electricians is £42,594.73. 115.The experts have agreed to reject some of the invoices because they relate to work carried out after The Oak was up and running. That reduced the claim to £36,048.43. A lesser figure of £33,812.25 was maintained in the closing submissions. ii) The Problems With The Claim As Presented116.The claim for electricians suffers from the general problems noted at paragraphs 59-77 above. The specific problems with the claims as presented are set out in section 2.7 of Mr Thomas’ report. Again, the invoices give only a very general description of the work for which a charge was being rendered. There is also little to identify the appropriate rates. In addition, Mr Thomas identified at paragraph 2.7.4 of his report detailed queries about the invoices on which the claim is based, including the risk that they related to works which were nothing whatsoever to do with the second inundation. Mr Thomas also said that he failed to understand why three completely different electrical contractors were working on the project at identical times, and that no proper explanation for this had been given. In view of the paucity of information in the invoices, Mr Thomas considered that he had no option but to undertake his own valuation from scratch. 117.In my judgment, these problems with the invoices were not made good by the factual evidence. Mr Barber made plain that he could not help with the detail and had no idea as to what hours or days were being claimed, and what the detail of the work was. He said that he was not involved in the decision-making process that had led to the engagement of two different firms. Mr Penny, who was, was also unable to provide any information as to the detail that was not apparent from the face of the invoice. His explanation for the three contractors – that there was a lot of work – ignored the fact that the scope was no greater than the original fit-out works.118.In those circumstances, it again seemed to me that the only reliable valuation of this work was that carried out by Mr Thomas. The reasons why I favour Mr Thomas’ approach, set out at paragraphs 78-91, apply again. The lack of information in the documentation meant that the electrical invoices were, in my view, an unreliable way to assess the reasonable value of the work carried out. iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation119.Mr Thomas spoke to Mr Collins of JP Electrical and Mr Hawkey of Quest Electrical about the work that they performed. I have addressed the reasons why such discussions were, in this case, appropriate in paragraphs 74-75 above. He then produced a measurement and valuation of the work that they said they carried out in the sum of £13,250. The biggest item of that was £12,500 for the basic work. In cross-examination he gave further details of these conversations. He said that those conversations only served to confirm his view that the work in the invoices had not been carried out.120.Accordingly, subject to the paragraphs below, I find that the figure of £13,250 represented a proper and reasonable valuation of the electricians’ labour costs. iv) Modifications to Mr Thomas’ Figures121.Again, although they were not suggested by Mr Woodall, various possible increases in the £13,250 figure were put to Mr Thomas in cross-examination. As I have already noted, Mr Thomas was adamant that the sums claimed in the invoices were unreasonable and was doubtful as to whether the work had actually been carried out. He denied that his valuation was based on “a feeling”; instead, he explained how, having reached the conclusion that the invoices were unreasonable and unreliable, he had valued the work in a different way. He also explained how and why his figure was akin to the cost of the electrical element of the original fit-out works.122.Notwithstanding this, and contrary to Mr Miller’s firm submission that the valuation should not be increased, there was one area where I concluded that Mr Thomas’ valuation was, in his own word, “light”. He had not thought that it was reasonable for there to be a full strip-out of all the electrics. Whilst I consider that he may well be right about that, it appears from the evidence, including the undisputed evidence of Mr Garry, that there was a full strip-out to which nobody raised any objection at the time. In such circumstances, I consider that this is the sort of matter on which the party on whose behalf the work was carried out, and who is claiming the cost thereof, is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 123.The problem was the calculation of the additional amount for the full stripping out. Mr Thomas was asked to deal with that, on the hoof, in cross-examination and in re-examination. It was not a process that was very fair to the witness, and it is unsurprising that his answers were rather muddled. However, I concluded that what he was saying was that the £12,500 for the basic work would become £25,000, whilst everything else stayed the same. That would increase the reasonable valuation to £25,750.124.Although, in paragraph 88 of his closing submissions, Mr Plewman argued that there were other sums to be added, I reject that, because Mr Thomas’ figures were global, and they therefore discounted the different claims (for apparently similar work) by different contractors. I also reject the criticism that this adjustment then produces a figure close to the claimed amount; the pleaded amount was for nearly twice the sum assessed by Mr Thomas, even allowing for this modification.125.Accordingly, I value the electrician claim in the sum of £25,750 which is based on Mr Thomas’ valuation but with the extra amount to reflect the total stripping out. d) Painters i) The Claim126.The original claim for this item was £4,210. With the agreed reductions this figure became £3,748. ii) The Problems With The Claim As Presented127.The problems with this element of the work claim are dealt with in Section 2.4 of Mr Thomas’ report. They are essentially the same as those general matters set out in paragraphs 59-77 above, namely the absence of any proper guide to what work was carried out, when and at what rate. 128.In particular, Mr Thomas demonstrated that, on the basis of the unparticularised invoices, either the painting work undertaken for Brit Inns was done 2.6 times more slowly than industry norms, or the painters had charged for working in areas other than the basement. Because I find that there were no factors peculiar to the basement which would have resulted in the works being undertaken in an inefficient manner, Mr Thomas was rightly unable to accept the reasonableness of the sums claimed. 129.As with other items, Mr Barber was unable to help with the detail of the works carried out. Neither was there any specific information from Mr Penny to make good the gaps. In those circumstances, I again accept Mr Thomas’ assessment and I accept his valuation as being the appropriate method to adopt to arrive at a reasonable figure. Again I note that, in his closing submissions, Mr Plewman adopted, with modifications, Mr Thomas’ figures.iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation130.Mr Thomas valued the painting work at £1,920. This was based on 16 man days. iv) Modifications to Mr Thomas’ Figures131.In cross-examination, it was suggested that there were other matters which made the painting element of the reinstatement fit-out works inefficient or difficult. As noted above, I reject that notion. These were straightforward painting works and were entirely normal.132.Another point put to Mr Thomas was that he was wrong to conclude that the defendants had no liability for the painting of doors and door linings, architraves and the like. Mr Thomas’ view was based on the assumption that these items, if they were damaged at all, were damaged by the first inundation and had been removed (and not replaced) by the time of the second inundation (see paragraph 109 above). For the reasons set out above, I accept that assumption as being factually accurate. Mr Thomas was therefore right to exclude such works. I therefore reject the £600 addition sought in Brit Inns’ closing submissions.133.Accordingly, for those reasons, I accept the reasonable valuation of this element of the labour work in the sum of £1, 920. e) Plasterers i) The Claim134.The claim for plasterers was originally put at £12,847. ii) The Problems With The Claim As Presented135.This is dealt with in Mr Thomas’ report at Section 2.9. It is another good example of the problems identified in paragraphs 59-77 above. The majority of the plastering work was undertaken by Lee Henshaw, whose invoices lack any detail at all to identify what days he worked and what work he undertook. There is also no detail as to the rates charged. It proved impossible for Mr Thomas to contact Mr Henshaw by telephone. Mr Barber was unable to help with the detail. Mr Penny was asked to justify the £12,000 odd figure by comparison with the plastering work on the original fit-out works, which cost just £4,150. He was unable to help. iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation136.Accordingly, for these reasons, it again seems to me appropriate that Mr Thomas’ methodology ought to be adopted. Mr Thomas’ valuation, set out in his report and appendix D7, arrived at a figure of £1,500. iv) Modifications To Mr Thomas’ Figures137.Mr Thomas was cross-examined about his figure. At the core of his explanation for the significant reduction that he made from the sum claimed was the fact that there was very little plastering in the basement. He said the basement divided into three parts. One third was the kitchen where there was no plastering; the second third were the bathrooms and the lobby which were entirely tiled; and that it was only the last third, the function room, that had finished plaster work applied to it. This was not challenged.138.Mr Thomas did accept that, because of a betterment argument in relation to the tiling, he had omitted costing 20 square metres of plaster. In re-examination, he said that that would increase the valuation by £150. I accept that evidence.139.Accordingly, I assess the value of the plasters in the sum of £1,650, being the original £1,500 produced by Mr Thomas, and its additional £150. Again I note that, in his closing submissions, Mr Plewman expressly accepted this figure. That was a realistic concession that this head of loss was claimed in a sum that was almost eight times higher than it is now agreed it should have been, and that the only reason this exaggeration came to light was not through the invoices or Mr Woodall’s efforts, but the detailed investigation and methodology of Mr Thomas. f) Plumbing i) The Claim140.The original claim was £17,350. That was reduced as a result of the experts’ agreement to £13,900. That sum is still claimed in full by Brit Inns.ii) The Problems With The Claim As Presented141.The general problems with this head of claim are set out at paragraphs 59-77 above; the specific problems were dealt with in section 2.8 of Mr Thomas’ report. The principal difficulty was the complete absence of any detail at all in the GBM invoices. Indeed, I have taken one of those invoices as an example of an invoice in this case which contains absolutely no helpful information whatsoever: see paragraphs 63-64 above. Again, Mr Barber was unable to help. Mr Penny at one point suggested that the sum of £11,000 was a fixed price, but when it was pointed out to him that there was another invoice from GBM, he was reduced to saying that possibly the sub-contractor had got “confused”. To be fair to Mr Penny, he said that he could not really remember the detail of what work was carried out or in what circumstances. Mr Penny was also unable to say why the plumbing work was so much more than the £10,000 odd for the original fit-out on two floors. 142.In those circumstances, bearing in mind my views at paragraphs 78-91 above, I again find that Mr Thomas’ methodology is the one to be preferred.iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation143.Mr Thomas valued the claim in detail and arrived at the sum of £6,468. He made plain that this was based on his discussions with Mr Jeff Malloy, the owner of GBM. Importantly, Mr Malloy told him that his work only related to hot and cold water supplies and wastes from the sinks and sanitary ware. 144.On the face of it, it seems to me that Mr Thomas’ valuation was reasonable and reliable, save for any particular modifications which he accepted in cross-examination. iv) Possible Modifications To Mr Thomas’ Figures145.In cross-examination, Mr Thomas made plain that not all of the plumbing was in the basement although, of course, the claims in these proceedings should have been limited to plumbing in the basement. He accepted that his measurement relied in large part on what he was told by Mr Malloy in his conversations with him on the telephone but, for the reasons previously noted, this was only necessitated by the total inadequacy of the paperwork. To put the point another way, the detail given by Mr Malloy orally was greater than in the invoices.146.There was some evidence that the gas distribution system had to be refitted as part of the reinstatement fit-out works. The evidence was unsatisfactory because of the absence of information in the invoices, but endeavouring to give Brit Inns the benefit of the doubt, and accepting the evidence of Mr Barber that there was some gas supply work done that was consequential on the second inundation, it appears that a further sum should be allowed for this work. Mr Thomas valued it at £650. No other item of work could be shown to have been omitted. The resulting figure (£7,118) compares with the original fit-out costs of £9,900 odd, for work on two floors.147.Accordingly, a reasonable valuation of the plumbing work, to include the gas distribution work, was £7,118 (being £6,468 plus £650). g) SP Contracts i) The Claim148.The claim in respect of SP Contracts is in the sum of £55,854.64. The experts agreed a reduction of £5,168.75, making a total claim of £50,685.89. ii) The Problems With The Claim As Presented149.The problems with Mr Penny’s invoices were the same as those relating to other contractors. There was no detail of what was done. Mr Barber agreed that he had not made any enquires as to the work done by Mr Penny. Mr Penny himself agreed that no one else could check the invoices other than him and there was no detail to support them. There had been a diary but that had been destroyed although, as Mr Penny fairly accepted, that would not have recorded his hours in any event. 150.This was unfortunate because there was a significant problem with Mr Penny’s hours as claimed. He accepted that when he was cross-examined. When the figures for his various claims arising out of the second inundation were added up and put to him, they came to 223 days. He agreed that “There is something not right here”. In my view, the total of 223 days was incapable of being justified. iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation151.Mr Thomas valued the works by allowing £25,000 on the basis of allowing one week’s work in the period January/February 2007 and 19 weeks from June to October 2007. iv) The Proper Analysis152.The claim for Mr Penny’s fees divided into three parts. The first related to the period prior to the reinstatement fitting-out works in June 2007 and was in the sum of £22,504. That included the sum of in excess of £13,000 odd, which was not the subject of an invoice but which apparently related to his attendance at meetings in relation to the insurance claim and the like. The claim for the period between June and October was in the sum of £26,181. The last period, which occurred after The Oak was up and running, was in the sum of £6,418. When Mr Thomas was cross-examined about Mr Penny’s fee claim, he was properly cross-examined by Mr Plewman on the basis of these three separate periods.153.I consider that the claim for the middle period from June to October, in the sum of £26,181, should be allowed in full. That is because the figure is very close to Mr Thomas valuation for the same period, in the sum of £23,750. This is a good example of a situation where the ‘bottom-up’ valuation approach adopted by Mr Thomas produces a figure very close to the actual figure incurred. In those circumstances, it seems to me that Brit Inns should have the benefit of any doubt. Accordingly, I allow £26,181 in relation to Mr Penny’s claim for the fit-out works. By the same token, of course, it must follow that the claim for the subsequent period, namely £6,418, must be excluded in full, just as Mr Thomas has done. It appears that such work had nothing whatsoever to do with the second inundation. 154.That then leaves the question of the first period, prior to the commencement of the fit-out works. The experts are agreed that this should not be allowed as it stands; they have both made reductions to the sum claimed, and the issue for me is the appropriate amount of the reduction to be made.155.The claim is for £22,504. For the reasons which I have given, that claim is both unsupported by the documents and, in my judgment, is wholly unjustified. There was no need for Mr Penny to be on site for very much of this period, because it was during the period prior to June that the structural remedial works, including the installation of the Delta Drain, were being carried out. In addition, there was no need for Mr Penny to attend meetings with Mr Greig (if he did so): I have already made the point that the one time Mr Greig needed Mr Penny, which was the following year, and after the claim had been formally made, Mr Penny was not available to him.156.Mr Thomas made an allowance of 1 week to cover Mr Penny’s involvement during the period when the fit-out works were not yet started. That is in the sum of £1,250. I consider that the right allowance is for 2 weeks, because that was the (albeit vague) evidence about the length of time that the stripping-out took (paragraph 20 above). It was reasonable for Mr Penny to be on site for that period. That makes a total of £2,500.157.Accordingly, I allow Mr Penny’s claims in relation to this claim in the sum of £28,681, being the £26,181 actually incurred during the period of the fit-out works and the 2 weeks I have allowed for prior to that period, in the sum of £2,500. h) Tiling i) The Claim158.The pleaded claim for tiling was in the sum of £8,393 following the agreement before the experts.ii) The Problems159.The problems with this head of claim were the same as those in relation to other elements of the labour, dealt with in detail by Mr Thomas in Section 2.5 of his report. The invoices are unclear and appear to be excessive. Again, therefore, Mr Thomas’ separate valuation is the proper approach. iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation160.Mr Thomas’ valuation is at appendix D3 of his report in the sum of