Landlord Metropolitan Properties Co Ltd has been awarded a High Court order that scaffolding should be removed from its West London building, following a dispute over repairs.
Metropolitan claims to have been attempting to attend to the disrepair of interior and exterior parts of the building, but the tenants of several flats in the building allegedly took matters into their own hands and engaged a contractor to start work. The contractor’s scaffolding must now be removed in line with the court order.
Following consultations with the buildings tenants association, Metropolitan undertook a tendering process for contractors to carry out the required works, and two sets of building contractors were engaged to carry out the internal and external works respectively.
The tenants argued that Metropolitan had a long history of failing to carry out its obligations to repair under the leases, and had grossly and unreasonably overcharged for the works. On those grounds, they started moves to carry out the works themselves.
At the request of the tenants, Metropolitan suspended its plans to proceed with the work in order to give them time to produce specifications and contracts at a lower price than its own contractors. However, when the tenants failed to produce any evidence that they could perform the works more cheaply, Metropolitan obtained a court order requiring them to provide copies of all plans and proposed scheduled works.
The tenants’ contractor later erected scaffolding outside the building without permission, and Metropolitan launched proceedings against them, seeking a mandatory injunction to remove the scaffolding.
Etherton J has now granted that injunction, rejecting the tenants’ claim that Metropolitan’s past failures in the past meant that there was an implied licence that they could carry out the repairs without any trespass arising. He ruled that, despite Metropolitan’s former conduct, there was no reason to regard its appointed contractor as being incompetent or incapable of carrying out the work.
He further held that because the tenants had failed to disclose specifications or contracts for their proposed works, there was no evidence that they were in fact able to execute. He added that, if the tenants were permitted to carry out the works, it would have to be done with the consultation or agreement of the other tenants in the building.
Metropolitan Properties Co Ltd v Wilson and others Chancery Division (Etherton J) 27 August 2002.
PLS News 29/08/02
