Lee Kyson applied for, and was accepted an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
Work had been suspended due to delays in implementing the final part of the Party Wall Award for the basement, this was enough to halt all the work. The Contractor put in a reasonable claim for compensation, to cover his losses. A meeting was arranged, however the Employer brought in a ‘Contract expert’ from Devon who informed the Contractor there was no provision in the contract for compensation.
The Contractor spoke to a surveyor who recommended Lee Kyson.
Lee discussed the situation, looked at the contract documents and suggested another meeting with the Employer. Based on Lee's advice, C attended a meeting with E and subsequently agreed a compensation figure of £12½k and received a 16 week extension of time.
Lee Kyson was contacted by the adjoining owner (AO), in February 2016, as while she was away the neighbouring building owner (BO) had carried out notifiable building works without serving notice and causing damage and trespass of foundations inter alia to the AO's property.
Having been appointed to act on behalf of the AO, Lee contacted the BO requesting that they appoint a surveyor under section 10(4)b of the 'Act', also offering to act as agreed surveyor.
The BO promptly instructed a solicitor. On expiration of the 10 day notice period Lee sought to appoint a surveyor to act on behalf of the BO. Despite having spoken to several surveyors they did not wish to accept the appointment as it was the AO's surveyor making the appointment. Finally a surveyor accepted the appointment.
This led to a protracted bout of correspondence between the parties. An award was finally served in August 2016 dealing with the damage caused by the BO, compensation to the AO, surveyors fees, legal costs, Arboriculterist's fees.... total £17,000.
Despite continual threats the 'Award' never was appealed.
This situation arose when a Building Contractor (BC) carried out external rendering to the existing house and two storey side and single storey rear extension. BC had virtually finished the works and had already received 50% (£3k) of the quoted price. The Client (C), a solicitor by profession, decided he was not happy with the work and demanded that the £3k be returned.
Lee Kyson was requested by BC to inspect the rendering. The rendering left a lot be desired, however having a background in plastering and rendering Lee was able to suggest remedial works which would have given C a higher quality of work than originally quoted for. However, C had employed the services of Chartered Surveyor (CS) who compiled a report, a couple of Site managers and two ‘expert’ renderers all of whom who suggested that the rendering be hacked off and redone.
C commenced litigation to reclaim the £3k. Lee prepared a defence for BC; partly based on the fact that the ‘expert renderers’ grounds for hacking off the render conflicted with each other and all conflicted with British Standards for Plastering and Rendering.
When in court the Judge informed C that his prospects were not good and after a short hearing from both parties judged in favour of BC. C requested leave to appeal, which was promptly denied.
Although there were various arguments put forward the basic reasons why C’s claim and the arguments against defective work failed:
· The CS report conflicted with BS for plastering and rendering.
· One ‘expert renderer’ stated that both the base coat and top coat of render were of the same strength and that the top coat should be of a weaker mix.
· The second stated that both coats should be the same thickness and that as the top coat was thinner than the base coat it should be hacked off.
In actual fact both the views of the ‘expert renderers’ were wrong; if both the base and topcoat are of the same strength the topcoat should be thinner, if both coats are of the same thickness the topcoat should be weaker.
The project, in Victoria Park, Hackney, was nearing completion, Contractor arrived on site one Monday morning only to find a bunch of workers using his tools and materials. The Client tells him 'its OK we'll finish it now'. Lee advises the Contractor to pursue the matter through Adjudication. Contractor wins and receives £4,000 for loss of profit.
Construct a new 3 storey timberframe office building. The works involved the partial demolition of the existing building, excavation for new foundations and drainage, construction of the building including decor.
The 'copper door' was designed as a security door, to be able to slide back and forth with no visible sliding gear.
We will be negotiating with the client early next year when permission will have been granted for a change of use. The upper two floors will then be converted into two flats.
Construction of a 1bedroom timberframe houses. My early involvement with the architect during planning enabled us to hit the ground running, I project managed this scheme through to being ready for internal fitout, which the clients wished to carry out himself. I remained on hand for further assistance when required
The construction was carried out using 'loose' timber i.e. 'stickbuild'. My role included prelimanary costing, schedule & cashflow forecast, agreeing monthly valuations, procurement of labour & materials as well as site management. I personally did all the groundworks, supertructure assistance, external wall insulation and part of the slate walling.