[2023] UKUT 00282 (LC)

The claimants instructed Mr Daniel Martin BSc MA MRICS, a chartered building surveyor from Purcell Architects, who specialises in heritage buildings. The respondent instructed Mr John William Wates MA (Oxon) BSc FRICS, a chartered building surveyor from Fedalah Ltd. Mr Wates reported on 28 April 2022 and Mr Martin on 24 May 2022.

The surveyors were aware of the claimants’ case, and Mr Evans’ opinion, that groundwater levels had risen as a result of the respondent’s work. Mr Martin’s report explained why that was a cause for concern. Buildings of the age of The King’s Lodging, which is essentially medieval in construction, have no in-built protection from damp. If the ground on which they stand becomes too wet, water will rise within the timber frame of the house and cause decay. Ground above the water table itself can become wet through capillary action, and sodden ground may then cause subsidence. We do not need to give further detail about these processes as the evidence is not disputed.

The surveyors of course inspected the property after the work was done; for information about the condition of the building prior to the works they relied on inspections carried out by The Morton Partnership (“TMP”) for the claimants and by Ridge and Partners LLP (“Ridge”) for the respondent. Mr Peter Corcoran of TMP (see below) had inspected on 21 August 2014 and produced a report on structural defects. Mr Keith Green of Ridge had inspected on 28 October 2014 and produced a photographic record of damp, cracks and building defects. In addition the surveyors had the benefit of comments made by Ridge following Mr Green’s reinspection in October 2016. Both experts expressed disappointment at the lack of detail, particularly measurements of cracks and moisture levels, in the 2014 Ridge report.

The surveyors produced a joint statement, dated 18 August 2022, in which they stated their agreement as follows:

“It is agreed that levels of dampness on the ground floor of the property are higher than prior to the works undertaken by the Environment Agency having taken place and this is very likely to be attributable to works carried out by the EA.

Additional cracking to internal finishes has occurred since the work undertaken by the Environment Agency commenced in 2014 and this is very likely to be attributable to works carried out by the EA.

The external wall to the side of the main staircase rising from ground to first floor level has moved outwards since the work undertaken by the Environment Agency commenced in 2014 and this is very likely to be attributable to works carried out by the EA.

Solid floor finishes on the ground floor of the house have deteriorated as a result of salt crystallisation since the work carried out by the Environment Agency commenced in 2014 and this is very likely to be attributable to works carried out by the EA.

The need for further investigations is agreed although the detailed scope of those investigations and who will undertake them remains to be agreed.

It is agreed that changes in the water table from its current position could result in significant further damage to the property beyond that which is currently visible. The change could be the result of water levels falling following remedial works to the flood defense wall.”

The surveyors agree that the deterioration “is very likely to be attributable” to the works. However, since the surveyors do not have the expertise to say how the works caused the deterioration, the Tribunal must look to the hydrology evidence for causation. If water levels have not risen then the surveyors’ agreement by itself would not provide sufficient evidence for a conclusion that the respondent’s works caused the deterioration.