Following on from Barrel Dregs 152, Pot Boy South East has learned of yet another layer of Tricky Dickyness, or should that be Tricky Teddyness, that is infusing the professionally qualified (?) members of Enterprise Inns Building Surveying Dept. Readers may well remember from BD 152 that Ken Lebow was bounced with a well OTT Dilapidations schedule AFTER he had surrendered his lease. Not only did the schedule contain a requirement for an Energy Performance Certificate at a cost of £1000 (illegal) but there was another twist.
It now transpires that the first and second floors of the Old Oak, Romford have been gutted and aside from internal walls being rearranged, new bedsits have been created. Now nothing wrong with that you may say, except for one thing. Enterprise had to have planned the work well in advance of Ken Lebows’ departure. Penny dropping me Old Chinas’ ??
The Enterprise Inns BRM required that Ken should redecorate the upper floors prior to his leaving and even allowed him to lay new carpeting KNOWING that the whole lot would be gutted and have a total make over. Also, PB is reliably informed by mi’ learned friends, that under both the Law Society’s protocol and that of the RICS it is not permitted to require specific Dilapidations if the Surveyor has PRIOR KNOWLEGE that the work would be overtaken by the Companies pre planned total makeover. So charging for work in a Dilaps schedule that is to be immediately obliterated appears to be a classic case of overloading the Dilaps schedule knowing that the whole affair is destined for the Courts. Massive claim, massive frightener to the now departed tenant.
Clumsy, ever, ever so clumsy, and they would have got away with it if PB South East hadn’t been tipped off to the whole fan dango by a chance remark from City Pot Boy whilst “Up West” doing some last minute personal shopping.
Begs the question tho’….just possibly how systemic is this whole nasty mess as PB can’t Adam and Eve it that the case of the Old Oak is either a one off or a mere slip up by the Enterprise surveyor. Shudder to think of the mountain of other examples of the same trickery that have passed well under the radar ‘cos the Tenants and the Courts put their trust in the “honesty” of a professional in the employ of a Plc.
Unless of course the surveyor was under starters orders to do so in the first place. Now perish the thought. Now PB can’t possibly imagine why a living soul would ever think that such a big Plc and Corporate Member of the Laughing Policeman (yes it’s boldly shown on all their headed notepaper) would be capable of being so dishonest!! Wash your mouth out with the old Coal Tar !!
Back to the warmth and honesty of Hackney Marshes.
Pot Boy South East.
If you would like to Advertise on the Site, please email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The views expressed are not necessarily the editors and www.buyingapub.com accepts no responsibility for them, we do try to avoid offensive or litigious statements being made. They are written by concerned professionals in the industry who feel that these issues should be raised to ensure that all licensees are made fully aware of many hidden pitfalls.