Disposal
14.Shortly before the hearing, I was provided with the latest version of the schedule, plans and photographs produced on 13 October together with the additional revisions produced on 30 October. 15.Mr Wright explained that aside from the matter of the schedule of works, authority had been received from the Secretary of State for the purchase of the subject property by the CA, terms had been agreed with the claimant and conveyancing solicitors had been instructed on both sides. He also explained that the only reason for this matter coming before the Tribunal was to protect the CA’s position if the agreed sale did not proceed and referred to issues that immediately prior to the hearing remained unresolved, particularly the fact that the claimant had refused to allow underground grouting of the old mine workings to be undertaken beneath the Property. That issue was, in fact, resolved immediately before the hearing and it was anticipated that the sale/purchase would be completed “by Christmas”. If that occurred, the Tribunal’s decision would not be required.16.I therefore resolved, with the agreement of the parties, to delay preparing this decision until close of business on 12 January 2018 (to give reasonable allowance for the Christmas break). As that date approached, I was advised that simultaneous exchange of contracts and completion was imminent, and granted a further stay to 25 January 2018. Mr Wright subsequently advised that if the Tribunal’s determination was not submitted on that day, the cost implications to the CA would be considerable, as demolition contractors had been booked to commence works on 15 Bayfield, and undertake other works on the estate, starting on 26 January. I agreed that there would be no further stay, and that the decision (which would most likely be in the CA’s favour) would be despatched on or by 25 January at the latest. 17.I have considered all the papers and confirm that I am satisfied that the schedule of works produced on 13 October 2017 together with the plans, photographs, costings and the minor amendments made on 30 October fully satisfy the provisions of section 6(2) of the 1991 Act. I note that it is agreed between the parties that as the CA has elected to execute repairs to the property in accordance with that schedule (if the sale/purchase does not proceed) that the costs contained therein are of no actual relevance to the issues between the parties.18.I therefore determine that the remedial action to be taken by the CA in relation to the Property shall be that specified in the schedule of works in its amended form of 30 October 2017. Dated: 22 January 2018
Paul Francis FRICS