This article follows on from my recent experience with the P&T member Stuart Birrell following a complaint made against me by P&T member David Turner in 2018. I believe it highlights how P&T, as with the FPWS, are moving the goalposts the as and when it suits their agenda.
P&T - Pyramus and Thisbe Club - Double standards ?
It should be noted that in an appeal of a party wall award made by Andrew Schofield of Schofield Surveyors & Stuart Birrell of Murray Birrell Surveyors, HHJ Parfitt heavily criticised both Schofield & Birrell…only some of the comments are shown here:
THOMAS ASH - and - SHAYNE TRIMNELL-RITCHARD
34. Ground four:
"The authorised works throughout are the terms by destructive notice' under the Act."
HHJ: Yes, that is the reason fundamentally why this award is bad, for the reasons I have already given. I will not need to go and do no need to go into that in any more detail.
41. Ground eight:
"Responsibility for the cost of the works."
HHJ: In short, I agree with the position of the Appellant in relation to this, that the costs fell to be dealt with, and should have been dealt with, pursuant to Sections 11(5) and 13, and that the way in which this award purported to deal with them was improper and outside of those requirements, and the way the award dealt with those costs could not have stood.
42. Ground nine:
"Responsibility for the surveyors' fees."
HHJ: I do not need to say any more about that since I am setting aside the whole award and that will go as well. In conclusion, the appeal succeeds for the reasons argued by Mr Frampton for the Appellant and as I have set out in this judgment.
Mr Andrew Schofield of schofield surveyors is the author of both emails shown below - is he aware that they show THAT P&T operate double standards?
Mr Andrew Schofield of Schofield Chartered Surveyors in his capacity as National & London Branch Secretary of the Pyramus and Thisbe Club handed out the P&T’s decisions in regard to two different complaints. Mr Schofield’s emails to the recipients are shown verbatim below.
The first complaint highlighted below was raised by Mr Philip Antino of APA Property Consultants based in Chelmsford. Lee Kyson’s understanding is that Mr Antino’s complaint was founded on Mr Alistair Redler withholding information which ultimately cost his appointing owner £50k. If this is incorrect Lee would be grateful for any clarification and this information will be amended accordingly.
The second complaint was from fellow P&T member David Turner who raised the complaint with RICS, Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors, Pyramus and Thisbe Club and Chartered Institue of Building in respect of an ex parte Award that I served. David Turner subsequently confirmed in court that the ex parte Award was valid.
With reference to ‘double standards’, David Turner also ‘called upon’ Graham North without explaining what he was disputing to Lee Kyson, bearing in mind he originally sought to ask Andrew Schofield to enjoin in an award with him and Andrew Schofield agreed to this until I pointed out that he was not the selected third surveyor! Graham North subsequently decided there was a dispute and made an ‘award’ which, in Lee Kyson’s opinion, did not comply the advice by both P&T and the Green Book 3rd Ed. of which he was also a member of the working party. Graham North is currently national treasurer of the P&T. This particular point will be elaborated on later as time permits.
This email was received by Mr Antino from mr Andrew Schofield.
From: Andrew Schofield <andrew.schofield@schofieldsurveyors.co.uk>
Date: December 19, 2018 at 8:39:16 AM GMT
To: "phil@apaproperty.com" <phil@apaproperty.com>
Subject: Re: Complaint to the Pyramus & Thisbe Club
Dear Mr Antino,
Further to your complaint against Mr Redler made in the email dated 15th October 2018 the London Branch Committee met on 7th December 2018 and the matter was discussed. It was decided that no further action in connection with this matter should be taken. Mr Redler has been informed accordingly.
The Committee reached this decision because your complaint has already been examined and rejected by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and, as previously explained, Pyramus & Thisbe is a Club and a Learned Society it is not a professional or trade organisation and has neither formal complaint nor disciplinary procedures. Wishing you and your family the compliments of the season.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Schofield FRICS
National & London Branch Secretary
This email was received by Lee Kyson from Mr Andrew Schofield.
From: Andrew Schofield <andrew.schofield@schofieldsurveyors.co.uk>
Sent: 07 September 2018 11:12
To: lee@partywall.company
Subject: Membership of the Pyramus and Thisbe Club
Dear Mr Kyson
Following the complaint made by David Turner and your meeting with representatives of the Club to discuss his concerns, a decision has been made not to invite you to renew your membership. This is because you have failed to accept that your behaviour was inconsistent with that expected of a member, as outlined in the protocol, or to modify it in the future.
Pyramus & Thisbe is a Club and a Learned Society with the aim of promoting excellence in party wall practice, it is not a professional or trade organisation. Membership is by invitation and you are of course at liberty to re-apply in the future and to attend events organised by the Club as a guest. Please make sure that you remove all reference to membership or association with the Club from any literature, including websites and electronic mail.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Schofield BSc FRICS
National & London Branch Secretary
The approach appears to be inconsistent as in the response to Philip Antino
The Committee reached this decision because your complaint has already been examined and rejected by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and, as previously explained, Pyramus & Thisbe is a Club and a Learned Society it is not a professional or trade organisation and has neither formal complaint nor disciplinary procedures.
Yet in response to Lee Kyson - please note that the disciplinary were well aware that RICS had received a complaint about Lee Kyson from David Turner but RICS concluded that it did not warrant further investigation.
This is because you have failed to accept that your behavior was inconsistent with that expected of a member, as outlined in the protocol, or to modify it in the future.
email as received from RICS following David Turner’s complaint, which Mr Stuart Birrell, Ms Shirley Waldron, Mr Andrew Schofield and the London committee of P&T were aware of.
Dear Mr Kyson
Please find the attached letter and enclosure.
As you will note, we have received a complaint about you. Having reviewed the complaint and further relevant information in full, we do not consider that further investigation is appropriate and have determined that the matter be closed without further action. The letter also offers advice as to future compliance with RICS Rules and Professional Standards. Please note that you do not have to respond to the letter however I should be grateful if you would please confirm receipt of the letter.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
Content of the email covering letter received from RICS:-
14 June 2018
Dear Mr Kyson
Re: Closure of complaint
I am writing to advise you that RICS has received a complaint from Mr David Turner MRICS (“the Complainant”) regarding your conduct during a party wall instruction in relation to Church Lane,Aldenham, Watford, Hertfordshire WD25 8BA.
The Complainant alleges that you incorrectly and unlawfully served an ex parte Award, including doing so without providing notice of alleged failure to act effectively and without following the procedures set out in The Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The Complainant further alleges that you failed to provide your complaints handling procedure upon request. Finally, the Complainant alleges that you have communicated unprofessionally in correspondence with him.
We have reviewed the complaint and any further information received from the Complainant in full. I can confirm that, at this stage, we do not consider further investigation is necessary. We have determined that there is insufficient evidence to support a case to answer and the matter has therefore been closed without further action. We have advised the Complainant of this decision.