Dispute Resolution News
Professional negligence : Deadline reminders - Matt Smith
The Court of Appeal has found that a firm of surveyors was negligent in failing to remind its client when the time limit to make an application to the leasehold valuation tribunal was approaching.
In the case of Littlewood -v- Radford & Boston the claimant, Mrs Littlewood, purchased a leasehold flat in 1996. The lease was due to expire in 2014. Mrs Littlewood wanted to exercise her right under the Leasehold Reform Housing & Urban Development Act to acquire a lease extension of 90 years. The Act sets out a procedure which must be followed in order to obtain such an extension. As part of this procedure, it was necessary for Mrs Littlewood to apply to LVT for it to decide the amount of the premium to be paid for the lease extension. This premium is calculated in accordance with Schedule 13 of the Act.
Mrs Littlewood failed to make an application to the LVT in the required window of 8th July to 8th November 2000 and, as a result, she lost the chance to buy a lease extension under the Act. If she had followed the procedure correctly, she could have purchased an extended lease for a sum of £380,900. In the event, she proceeded with a purchase of an extended lease outside the terms of the Act and had to pay £485,000.
Mrs Littlewood had retained David Radford and Charles Boston, surveyors in the partnership of Boston Carrington & Pritchard to act for her in the acquisition of the lease extension. Mrs Littlewood alleged that Mr Radford negligently failed to either make, or advise her to make, an application to the LVT by 8th November 2000 for determination of the premium.
The Defendants argued that Mrs Littlewood had been informed of the importance of making an LVT application by 8th November and that its retainer with the Claimant had terminated on 5th June 2000.
It was held, first, that the retainer had not terminated on 5th June 2000. In reaching this decision, the Court was persuaded by the fact that Mr Radford did not bring a definite end to the retainer. Although he had threatened to stop acting due to unpaid fees, he did not formally cease to act and in fact stated in correspondence that he looked forward to hearing from Mrs Littlewood in the near future. Therefore, the retainer continued beyond the LVT deadline of 8th November 2000.
Second, as the retainer continued, there remained a continuing duty on the Defendants to advise the Claimant as to impending deadlines. The Court found that Mr Radford had advised Mrs Littlewood of the 8th November deadline at an early stage. Although there was not a duty to continually repeat this advice, there was a duty to provide a reminder to the client of impending time limits and, in this case, a reminder should have been given to Mrs Littlewood in October 2000.
This case is an important reminder of the duty on professionals to advise their clients as to any future action that is required. The surveyors in this case could have better protected themselves by bringing a formal end to the retainer letter when Mrs Littlewood failed to pay the firm's invoice. However, in the event, the retainer continued because the Claimant was allowed to instructed the Defendant on an ad hoc basis.
It is important that a retainer between an individual and professional is clearly defined so that the professional knows exactly what they are instructed to do. The individual needs to know exactly what the professional will do for them and what the individual is expected to do themselves. Professionals should ideally explain this is in person and also in writing so that the individual can be left in no doubt. The professional should also ensure that the client is left in no doubt as to when the retainer is ended and, if the retainer does end, what action the individual needs to take to bring the matter to a conclusion. Whilst the retainer is ongoing, professionals must diarise deadlines, write to the client to inform them when deadlines are approaching and advise what action is required. If professionals take such actions, then they should not be held liable for a client's failure to then act upon this information.
The solicitors in our Dispute Resolution Department are experienced in bringing actions in professional negligence against professionals. If you believe that the services provided by a professional have fallen below the standard that you expected from that professional and this has caused you loss, then please contact our Dispute Resolution Department who will be happy to discuss the situation with you.
If you have suffered injury and loss as a result of the negligence of a medical professional such as your GP or a surgeon, then you should contact our Clinical Negligence Department.
Matt Smith
This article provides a summary of a recent case/change in law/news item. It is intended for general information purposes only and is not to be relied upon. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated under any circumstances as a substitute for legal advice. Lees Solicitors LLP does not accept any responsibility for any loss that may arise from reliance upon the information contained within this article. The copyright in this article is owned by Lees Solicitors LLP and permission must be sought before reproduction or publishing.
Back to Dispute Resolution News
Case Studies
