Subsequent actions
10.Following the Notice of Reference, the claimant and the CA have pursued extensive and ongoing discussions to agree the schedule of works to both parties’ full satisfaction. The claimant’s statement of case in the reference, dated 1 August 2017, identified in detail the alleged shortcomings of the 19 January schedule. On 13 October 2017, the CA produced and sent to the claimant a further revised schedule of works in the belief that it satisfied the requirements of section 6(2) of the 1991 Act, and that it addressed the concerns that the claimant had expressed. The letter (to HPS Chartered Surveyors) to which the revised schedule, drawings and photographs of record was attached, concluded: “This letter constitutes notice on the part of the authority, pursuant to section 6(6) of the 1991 Act, requesting a variation of the Schedule of Remedial works.On receipt of your client’s signed acceptance of the revised schedule of repairs attached to this letter, the authority will withdraw its Lands Tribunal (sic) application and commence service disconnections and demolition works in order that your client’s property can be rebuilt without further delay.” 11.Following a subsequent exchange of emails between the parties dealing with some further reported deficiencies in the schedule, a final revised schedule was issued on 30 October 2017. In response, in an email to David Mason of the CA, Simon Hetherington said:“I refer to your email below and its enclosures and can confirm that I believe we are now at a stage whereby these adequately cover the rebuilding of 15 Bayfield. However, my client can’t sign the acceptance form as it stands because his concerns regarding the redevelopment of the remaining part of the estate and therefore the siting of 15 Bayfield have not been adequately covered.” The email went on to explain the claimant’s concerns regarding what the CA was intending to do about the overall redevelopment of the estate, other parts of which had also sustained subsidence damage, and the potential impact upon the value of the re-built 15 Bayfield if those works were either not carried out, or not done satisfactorily. It also suggested four further paragraphs that should be included within the form of acceptance before it was signed. 12.Those demands were significant and the CA refused to accede. It pointed out that its proposals for the wider area were not relevant to the schedule of works relating to the Property and, further, that any questions regarding the risks of potential long-term diminution were not issues with which section 6(2) of the 1991 Act was concerned.13.With the acceptance form not being signed within the specified 28-day period, the CA resolved to proceed with the hearing set down for 4 December 2017.