Received a Notice of Intent to Apply for Adjudication

[Donny462]

Sorry, but can't read letter.
Can you upload to something like imgur and provide a link (at least I think that's what you can do but I'm a computer illiterate!)

Hi des8

I cannot find anyone to help me out with posting the letter in another format, so will type it out instead, the letter is as follows:-

Without prejudice save as to costs - Part 36 offer

Dear *********

Enforcement of adjudication decision against ******

We have been instructed by ***** in relation to the enforcement of his adjudication decision dated *****

Our client has a strong case against you and is entitled to Summary Judgement on his claim to enforce the adjudicator`s decision. We are mindful that under the Civil Procedure Rules litigants are expected to try resolve their disputes wherever possible. We are therefore authorised to make your client the following offer to settle under Part 36.

This offer is made pursuant to Part 36 of the Civil procedure Rules, and it is intended to be a claimants Part 36 offer. Accordingly, if you accept this offer within 21 days you will be liable for our client`s costs, in accordance with CPR 36.13.

Terms of the Offer

Our client is willing to settle the entire proceedings, including any actual or proposed counterclaims, in the matter referred to above on the following terms:

You pay our client, within 21 days of accepting this offer, the sum of £24,000 (the settlement sum).

€This offer does take account of any counterclaims that your client may have against ours in this matter.

The settlement sum does not include costs and, as mentioned above, your client will be liable to pay our client`s costs on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed, up to the date of service of notice of acceptance if this offer is accepted within the relevant period.

FAILURE TO ACCEPT THIS OFFER

If you do not accept this Offer, and our client obtains judgement which is equal to or more advantageous than this Offer, our client intends to rely on CPR 36.17. In other words, our client will be seeking an order in the following terms:

You pay our clients costs up to the expiry of the relevant period.

You pay our client`s costs on the indemnity basis from the date on which the relevant period expired, with interest on those costs of up to 10% above base rate and interest on the whole or part of any sum awarded at up to 10% above base rate for some or all of the period starting from the same date.

An additional amount of 10% of the damages awarded by the Court.

If you consider this offer to be in any way defective or non compliant with Part 36, please let us know by return.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours*faithfully

If you could let me know if this letter is defective or non compliant with Part 36, I would be really grateful, thank you.*

[Donny462]

Sorry, I pressed post before I'd finished writing ....I will get back to you tomorrow, thank you.

[Donny462]

Thank you for your reply des8 , I'm afraid I'm a computer illiterate too....I will find out how to do it from someone who knows better than me what to do .

[des8]

Sorry, but can't read letter.
Can you upload to something like imgur and provide a link (at least I think that's what you can do but I'm a computer illiterate!)

[Donny462]

There is no reason why a solicitor who is acting for person A against person B, should not also be able to sue person B in his (the solicitor's) own name.

Re CPR 36 here is a good guide to the subject.
Offers to settle which are compliant with CPR 36 have costs consequences

CPR 36 here so you can check if the offer complies.https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part36

CPR36 Practice Directions here;https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...t36/pd_part36a

Thank you for your advice, responses, and information.

I have read all the info you have given me, and I think the offer is compliant and not defective, but would you mind casting your eye over the letter for me please and giving me your opinion?*

Many thanks in anticipation.

[des8]

There is no reason why a solicitor who is acting for person A against person B, should not also be able to sue person B in his (the solicitor's) own name.

Re CPR 36 here is a good guide to the subject.
Offers to settle which are compliant with CPR 36 have costs consequences

CPR 36 here so you can check if the offer complies.*https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part36

CPR36 Practice Directions here;*https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...t36/pd_part36a

[Donny462]

Sorry to hear about your ongoing health problems and trust you are now recovered

Delays in enforcement are not unusual.
The engineer might not have initiated the process yet, in the hopes you either pay or try and come to a settlement with him.

I really think you should obtain professional advice, even if it means paying for it.
The courts rarely interfere with an adjudicators decision and you will need proper representation if you are to argue your position successfully.
If it does go to court the losing party is likely to have to pay all the costs, and it's unlikely to be cheap.

Hi des8
*Firstly,thank you for your further advice, I keep saying it, but I really do appreciate it. Apologies for my very late response, I have had further complications with my health, and a close bereavement.
Since I last posted on here, I have taken legal advice, basically as well as the issues that you pointed out to me, the Solicitor thought that there is a good case for arguing the adjudicator was biased in his findings, he also felt that the adjudicator didn`t have jurisdiction to deal with the case as it was clear that the engineer acted as an expert as part of an arbitration.
The engineer hasn`t issued proceedings against me yet, instead, he has got the solicitor who he introduced to us to complete the application for an extension in time in the Coal Authority Case, to write to me making an offer of settlement without it going to court.
I paid the solicitor £623.00 for completing the application and that was that, it was all done and dusted as far as I was concerned. Then over a year later, the solicitor wrote to me stating that the engineer had instructed him, on my behalf to get a barristers opinion on my chances of success in court against the Coal Authority, and he hadn`t realised, but there was an outstanding bill of £1500.00 for barristers fees! I never gave instructions for a barristers opinion , I was in hospital at the time, and only briefly spoke to the solicitor once, and asked him to complete the application and submit it to court, nothing more. I even have the solicitors letter stating that his only instructions were to complete the application. Therefore, I told the solicitor that I would not be paying the barristers bill as I didn`t ask the barrister to do anything.
Anyway, the solicitor has issued proceedings against me for the barristers bill of £1500.00 and I am defending the claim as I believe I can prove my case.
What I would like to ask please is this, is it a conflict of interest for a solicitor who is currently making a claim against me, to then be acting for the engineer who introduced him to us in the first place, (and who instructed him to get a barristers opinion so should be responsible for the barristers £1500.00 bill), in also making a claim against me? Basically, the solicitor is attempting to bring two cases against me...one for himself for fees for a barristers opinion which I can prove I didn`t even ask for, the other being for the engineer who introduced the solicitor to us in the first place, and who clearly asked for the barristers opinion!
Finally, could you please tell me what it means by being CPR36 compliant? The solicitor who is making the offer to me to agree a settlement with the engineer has asked me to advise him whether I believe his letter to me is CPR36 compliant...I havent a clue what this means, or if the letter is indeed CPR36 compliant or not .His letter states:-
If you consider this offer to be in any way defective or non compliant with Part 36, please let us know by return.
Please can you tell me what this means?
Sorry this is all a bit muddled, it makes much more sense in my head :/
*

[des8]

Sorry to hear about your ongoing health problems and trust you are now recovered

Delays in enforcement are not unusual.
The engineer might not have initiated the process yet, in the hopes you either pay or try and come to a settlement with him.

I really think you should obtain professional advice, even if it means paying for it.
The courts rarely interfere with an adjudicators decision and you will need proper representation if you are to argue your position successfully.
If it does go to court the losing party is likely to have to pay all the costs, and it's unlikely to be cheap.

[Donny462]

Hi des8 , thank you for your good wishes, and your advice, it has helped me so much.

Unfortunately, I was taken back into hospital, then when I got home, our Village flooded, so we have been cut off from the outside world unless you had a tractor or a huge 4 x 4! Not even any phone lines working, but the Press managed to get in .

Just to let you know, I haven't another word from the Engineer, or the Construction Court....can I ask you if it usually takes this long please?

Thank you.

[des8]

Your welcome.
Do get proper legal advice as soon as possible, and hope all goes well.

Trust you are now recovered and your health continues to improve

[Donny462]

Dear des8

Firstly, may I apologise that I haven't replied and thanked you before now, unfortunately, I have been in hospital very poorly since the day after I last replied to you, and I was only allowed out yesterday.

To bring you up to date, my Partner wrote to the engineer informing him of my hospitalisation and that I was on a HDU Ward. The engineer replied saying he'd waited long enough and he was seeing his Solicitor last Thursday to set proceedings in motion to apply for a Summary Judgement.

I shall be arranging to see a Solicitor as soon as possible to get an opinion, and will keep you informed.

I know I keep saying it, but I really am so grateful for all of the help you have given me.

[des8]

First thing is he can't just send in the HCEO. or bankrupt you.
He needs a court order following a claim which he will need to make and win in the High Court.

Do I think the adjudicator had jurisdiction?
Doesn't really matter what I think, but I do believe you have a case on the basis of your posts here.
Firstly you have rescinded the contract because of alleged misrepresentation, and if that is held to be valid they have no case.
Secondly there is a question over whether or not some or all of the work related to a construction project or arbitration

However I doubt you have posted all the correspondence,so this might be a skewed view.
This unfortunately can happen completely unintentionally, hence the need to seek out professional help

[Donny462]

Not unexpected.
As you say you have not the money (nor probably the desire) to pay I think now you are about to enter the realms of litigation, and will need the advice of a solicitor.as I expect they will seek enforcement through the Technology and Construction Court (a branch of the High Court)

IMO the arguments boil down to:
1)whether or not he was an agent or an expert witness whose fees should have been paid by CA
2) whether or not you were induced to appoint the engineer by misrepresentation and consequently
3) whether or not your rescission was valid

I would suggest an initial exploratory consultation with a suitably knowledgeable solicitor who might be able to enter a Conditional Fee Arrangement with you. Try googling "enforcing an adjudicator's decision".

Many thanks des8 , I will make some calls and see what I can come up with. As you rightly say, I neither have the money, or the desire to pay either the engineer, (who was negligent and cost me losses of a great deal of money), or the adjudicator, who in my opinion was very biased towards the engineer, and it was clear early on, when the engineer was making statements without proof and the adjudicator was accepting them as truth, that he was going to look after one of his own!

Can I ask, do you still believe that the adjudicator didn`t have jurisdiction? I don`t care what the engineer says, he never did anything to do with building or construction, all works he did, were done purely as parts of two separate arbitrations , the adjudicator even says in his `decision` that the engineer did works as part of an arbitration, yet he still ruled in the engineers favour on everything!

I note that you say that the Technology and Construction Court is a branch of the High Court, does that mean he can now send people like those on `Can`t Pay We`ll take it Away` to collect the money? Or make an order to make me bankrupt, without me having a say? Sorry, but i`m worrying now.

Thank you so much for all of your help, I can`t tell you how much it means.

[des8]

Not unexpected.
As you say you have not the money (nor probably the desire) to pay I think now you are about to enter the realms of litigation, and will need the advice of a solicitor.as I expect they will seek enforcement through the Technology and Construction Court (a branch of the High Court)

IMO the arguments boil down to:
1)whether or not he was an agent or an expert witness whose fees should have been paid by CA
2) whether or not you were induced to appoint the engineer by misrepresentation and consequently
3) whether or not your rescission was valid

I would suggest an initial exploratory consultation with a suitably knowledgeable solicitor who might be able to enter a Conditional Fee Arrangement with you. Try googling "enforcing an adjudicator's decision".

[Donny462]

Hi des8 , well the engineer made his submissions yesterday evening at 16.53, and by 8.27 this morning, the adjudicator had made his decision, and as I knew he would, he has found in favour of the engineer ! The engineer provided no proof in his submissions, he just said things and the adjudicator has taken his word for it! Additionally, even though the adjudicator admits some of the work was to do with an arbitration, he has still included that work as part of his decision and found for the engineer! There are also a couple of emails which quite simply never existed, which were supposedly sent to the engineer, the adjudicator has taken everything the engineer has said, as fact, in many cases, with no proof!

What are my next steps now please? The adjudicator has also said I have to pay his fees of over £4000.00 within 7 days, when I`ve said from the beginning that I didn`t believe he has jurisdiction ! I don`t have the money to pay him, even if I wanted to, (which I don`t as I believe he has been totally biased in favour of the engineer), do I tell him I don`t have the money now, or do I wait for the 7 days to be up? Also, what happens now with regards to the engineer requesting the money he`s been awarded? Please can you look at the award and give me your opinion?

The Contract 5.

The agreement (Contract) between the Parties was made on or about 15th December 2016 and incorporated XXX’s standard terms and conditions.

6. XXX was appointed to provide professional expert advice in relation to the adequacy of remedial works required to various buildings later extended to include acting as agent in a general arbitration substance claim against the Coal Authority at a site known as XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

The Dispute 7. The dispute pursuant to the Notice of Intention to Refer a Dispute to Adjudication dated 16th September 2019 (Notice) is described and framed in the following way:

14. DISPUTE

The dispute relates to XX’s non-payment of invoices raised: On 11/4/17 for £6,597.91 + £1,319.58 VAT totalling £7,917.49. On 31/7/17 for £3,827.50 + £765.50 totalling £4,593.00. On 10/5/18 for £10,283.75 + £2,506.75 VAT totalling £12,340.50. All totalling £20,709.16 ex VAT.

XX was informed by email Thu 05/09/2019 13:56 as follows: Please be aware that we will be commencing proceedings against you in respect of the outstanding invoices. A breakdown of the amount owing is shown below. Calculation of interest at 8.50 per cent. Invoice total less VAT £20,709.16 Total interest per day £5.61 Total interest to 05/09/2019 £2,551.85 Total VAT £4,310.65 Total owing £27,571.66

The Redress Sought

8. Pursuant to the Notice, XXX seeks a decision (Decision) from me described and framed in the following way: XXX requests the Adjudicator to decide that XXX should be paid by XX as follows: 18. Payment of invoices raised: On 11/4/17 for £6,597.91 + £1,319.58 VAT totalling £7,917.49. On 31/7/17 for £3,827.50 + £765.50 totalling £4,593.00. On 10/5/18 for £10,283.75 + £2,506.75 VAT totalling £12,340.50. All totalling £20,709.16 ex VAT

19. Interest at the rate of 8.5% on the above from date of issue to date of award and accruing on a daily basis or whatever amount the Adjudicator decides.

20. XXX costs associated with attempts to amicably resolve the dispute, exclusive of any costs relating to the adjudication from 24/8/18 to 05.09.19, at the rate of £200 per hour. 6 hours @£200 totalling £1,200.00 + VAT or whatever amount the Adjudicator decides.

21. Statutory payment of £100 under the provisions of The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 and Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2002 and 2013. 22. Adjudicator’s fees to be paid in full by XX.

Jurisdiction

9. By emails on 20th, 23rd, 25th and 30th September 2019 XX made various challenges to my jurisdiction. In essence, XX initially argued that the dispute was in relation to mining problems and exempt under the Construction Act; and the right to adjudicate under the Construction Act does not extend to construction contracts with home owners for works to their principal private dwelling. Then XX argued that there was no signed agreement or that she had received a copy of XXX’s standard terms and conditions. In addition, XX argued that clause 21 of the standard terms and conditions had not been brought to her attention and would potentially be deemed unfair under the UTCCR Regulations 1999 because of the significance of the clause, and that XXX had been instructed to give advice or factual evidence in relation to an arbitration rather than in relation to construction operations.

10. By emails on 20th, 24th, 25th and 30th September 2019 XXX made submission to me concerning those challenges.

11. I was persuaded by XXX that the Contract was formed when by email dated 8th December 2016 XXX made an offer to carry professional services, which was accepted by XX by email on or about 15th December 2019. XX was bound by the email and the terms incorporated by reference, whether XX read them or not. Clause 21 of the Contract specifically refers disputes concerning payment to adjudication, which incorporated the Scheme. Notwithstanding, I was persuaded by XXX that the Contract is a construction contract and the services provided by XXX were in relation to construction operations (not in relation to an arbitration) under the Construction Act. I was persuaded by XXX that the Contract cannot be said principally to relate to operations on a dwelling which XX occupies or intended to occupy because the majority of work related to two buildings (namely, the barns which XX intended to sell as residential dwellings) that did not form part of XX’s principal residence. Therefore, the exemption relating to residential occupiers under the Construction Act does not apply.

12. Consequently, I advised the Parties by email on 30th September 2019 that the challenges had failed, and I intended to continue with the adjudication.

ADJUDICATOR’S DECISION

The Adjudication Procedure 13. Clause 21 of the Contract provides that either party may refer disputes to adjudication in accordance with the Housing Grants, construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (Amendment 2011) (Construction Act), and Part I – Adjudication of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2011 (Scheme).

The Parties’ Submissions

14. I directed the Parties to provide me with written submissions and copies of all documents upon which they wished to rely, and they complied with my directions. The following key documents were provided: i. Referral Notice 19th September 2019 ii. Response 7th October 2019 iii. Reply 14th October 2019

The Issues to be Decided

15. Having considered the nature of the dispute and the Parties’ submissions and information provided to me, the following issues remain to be decided: ISSUE 1 – Is XXX entitled to payment of its fee invoices under the Contract in the sum of £20,709.16 plus VAT?

ISSUE 2 – Is XXX entitled to interest and compensation under The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 and the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2002 and 2013?

ISSUE 3 – Is XXX entitled to claim its costs associated with attempting to recover payment of its outstanding invoices, exclusive of any costs relating to the adjudication?

ISSUE 4 – How are my fees and expenses to be apportioned between the Parties? The Adjudicator’s Determination on the Issues 16. I make this my determination on the issues:

ISSUE 1 – XXX is entitled to payment of its fee invoices under the Contract in the sum of £20,709.16 plus VAT; consequently XX shall pay XXX the said sums within 7 days of the date of my Decision

ISSUE 2 – XXX is not entitled to interest and compensation under The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 and the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2002 and 2013

ISSUE 3 – XXX is not entitled to claim its costs associated with attempting to recover payment of its outstanding invoices, exclusive of any costs relating to the adjudication

ISSUE 4 – XX shall pay my fees and expenses in full in the sum of £3,642.50 plus VAT within 7 days of the date of my Decision

The Adjudicator’s Reasons for his Decision

ISSUE 1 – Is XXX entitled to payment of its fee invoices under the Contract in the sum of £20,709.16 plus VAT?


Pertinent Background

17.It is common ground that a telephone conversation took place between the Parties in early December 2016 to discuss appointing XXX to provide professional services as an expert structural engineer. On 8th December 2016 XXX emailed a copy of its charges, which was stated to be in accordance with its standard terms and conditions. The specific services were not detailed in the email.

18. It is common ground that a further telephone conversation took place on 14th December 2016, evidenced by an email on the same date in which XX sent various documents requested by XXX.

19. On 14th December 2016 XXX by email advised XX that the Coal Authority (CA) ‘…do not have the option to prevent my appointment. If they disagree they have the option to appoint their own and in that case there will be two experts. This is not an abnormal situation’.

20. Further information was sent by XX to XXX via email on 15th December 2016, and the email confirmed an agreement at that stage for XXX to provide a preliminary assessment of the damage to the farm house.

21. By email dated 16th December 2016 XXX was advised by the CA that it considered it was not appropriate to appoint Mr Wade as an expert engineer because he had acted for the CA on previous claims and therefore was not deemed independent. Consequently, the CA advised further that the Arbitrator was made aware and he recommended that the CA should approach the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators to suggest a suitable independent expert. Moreover, the CA advised that as Mr XXXX’s appointment had not been agreed by the CA his fees would not be reimbursed by the CA. The email was copied to XX.

22. In response, XXX stated by email dated 16th December 2016 that ‘…the CA have lost the Arbitration and consequently you are in no position to disrupt due process. I am progressing with the required report in accordance with the intention of the Final Award’.

23. By email dated 19th December 2016 XXX advised XX that it disagreed with the CA’s view on his appointment and stated, ‘I suggest we just progress’.

24. By email dated 19th December 2016 XX stated ‘XXX and I both totally agree with your points and wish you to go ahead as discussed’. In addition, the email stated further ‘XXX has contacted the Arbitrator and informed him that we have employed your services’.

25. By email dated 31st January 2017 XXX advised XX that the CA were obliged to cover XX’s expert fees, and suggested that XXX formulates the next claim.

26. By email dated 3rd February 2017 XX stated ‘XXX and I agree that we should now press on with the next claim…’

27. By email dated 13th February 2017 XXX advised XX that it would expect the CA to pay for fees relating to the production of structural reports but that they may not pay for XXX to conduct the claim for XX. XXX further advised that XX was responsible for XXX’s fees in the first instance. No objection was made by XX in its email response dated 14th February 2017 [My Emphasis].

28. By email dated 28th February 2017 XXX advised XX that having taken legal advice the CA’s objection to Mr XXXX’s independence would not stand up in court.

29. By email dated 10th April 2017 XX stated ‘…could you also send me the invoice for the works you have done in preparing the report on the barns so I can submit it with the Claims’. This was repeated on 11th April 2017.

30. By email dated 8th June 2017 XX stated ‘…obviously the CA cannot refuse to pay your costs if you are representing us in this matter as we are entitled to professional representation as per the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1994’.

31. Having submitted invoices for payment and not having received payment, XXX by email dated 2nd August 2017 stated that it would be unable to continue providing services beyond 12th August 2017 unless payment was made.

32. In response, XX by email dated 3rd August 2017 stated that during a telephone conversation on 3rd July 2017 XX advised that as XXX had acted against the CA before it would be aware that the CA never pay agents fees until the claims are finalised, which XXX agreed.

33. By email on 4th August 2017 XXX responded stating that the invoices were not conditional to CA’s acceptance or reimbursement, and that XXX was not acting as agents but consulting engineers in an expert capacity.

34. By email dated 11th August 2017 XX stated that XXX led it to believe that XXX was acting as agent in its claims against the CA. By email the same day XXX stated that it refuted XX’s version of the appointment, and that it was not prepared to continue with unpaid invoices.

35. By email dated 21st August 2017 XXX advised XX that it was prepared to continue providing expert back up required concerning the claim with the barns. In addition, by email dated 23rd August 2017 XXX advised that it would not press for any payment at this stage. XXX then proceeded to carry out further services.

36. By email dated 9th May 2018 XX passed two items of correspondence from the CA concerning the appointment of an expert stating that an expert’s costs will be paid, and ‘…no mention of if we make a successful claim or not, just that we are allowed a professional and the costs will be paid by the CA’.

37. By email dated 27th June 2018 XX stated ‘…one of my main bones of contention with her [Chief Executive of CA] is the fact the CA haven’t paid your fees as we are allowed an expert to work on our behalf under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act’.

38. By email dated 24th August 2018 XXX requested payment of its invoices and stated that XX had agreed to settle the invoices following the settlement of XX’s aunt’s estate, which XXX stated was evidenced by an attached email. The email in question dated 24th September 2017 does make reference to waiting to receive an inheritance but makes no statement regarding the settlement of invoices. I am not aware of the context of the statement.

39. By email dated 4th September 2018 XX stated ‘…XXXXXX is awaiting replies…from the Coal Authority relating to payment of your invoices, and ask that you bear with us…we will get back to you as soon as we are able’.

40. By email dated 23rd November 2018 XXX advised that the CA have indicated it will not pay the outstanding invoices. It also claims that XX had promised to make payment once it had received an inheritance. XXX continued to chase for payment until the beginning of September 2019.

Summary

41. Having been appointed by XX on or about 15th December 2016 to initially provide a preliminary assessment of the damage to the farm house, on 16th December 2016 the CA rejected the appointment of XXX and stated that it would not agree to pay XXX’s fees. XXX disagreed with the CA, and suggested to XX that the appointment continue, which was agreed by XX on 19th December 2016. This was effectively repeated on 31st January 2017.

42. On 13th February 2017 XXX advised XX that the CA should pay for its fees relating to the structural reports but may not pay for XXX to conduct the claim. As a further important matter, XXX advised XX that it would be responsible for XXX’s fees in the first instance. No objection was made by XX. At this juncture, in my view XXX’s appointment and payment of its fees were not conditional on XX receiving payment from the CA.

43. It would also seem that XX was independently of the firm view that the CA would pay for XXX’s fees under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act (emails 8th June 2017 and 27th June 2018). Nevertheless, on 9th May 2018 XX advised XXX that it had received confirmation from the CA that it would pay XXX’s fees, supporting both the belief of XXX and XX.

44. XXX, having pressed for payment of its fees was advised by XX that it was awaiting a reply from the CA. I understand that the CA refused to pay XXX’s fees, the reasons for this are unknown to me. Fee Invoices

45. XXX claims payment in the cumulative sum of £20,709.16 plus VAT against three invoices: a) Reference 5258 dated 31st January 2017 £3,827.50 plus VAT b) Reference 5308 dated 11th April 2017 £6,597.91 plus VAT c) Reference 5648 dated 10th May 2018 £10,283.75 plus VAT

46. XXX argues that XX never questioned the basis or calculation of the invoices and therefore is entitled to full payment. Having reviewed the correspondence that passed between the Parties, I concur that the invoices were never questioned.

47. Based on the aforementioned, I am persuaded by XXX that it is entitled to full payment of its fee invoices in the sum of £20,709.16 plus VAT.

ISSUE 2 –

Is XXX entitled to interest and compensation under The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 and the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2002 and 2013? 48. XXX claims interest at 8.5% and compensation of £100 for late payment of the outstanding invoices. Because XX is an individual or consumer, XXX is not entitled to claim interest or compensation under the legislation. It only applies to business to business contracts.

ISSUE 3 – Is XXX entitled to claim its costs associated with attempting to recover payment of its outstanding invoices, exclusive of any costs relating to the adjudication? 49. XXX claims its own costs of attempting to recover payment of the outstanding invoices in the sum of £1,200 plus VAT (6 hours @ £200). There is no express or implied term in the Contract for the recover of such costs, therefore XXX is not entitled to claim its own costs.

ISSUE 4 – How are my fees and expenses to be apportioned between the Parties?

50. XXX has sought an order from me that I decide that my fees and expenses be paid by XX. I generally take the position that responsibility for my fees and expenses should follow the normal expectation that fees, and expenses should follow the event save where it appears to me that in the circumstances this is inappropriate in relation to the whole or part of my fees and expenses.

51. My total fees and expenses are £3,642.50 plus VAT of £728.50 being a total of £4,371.00. XXX has been successful in its claim for payment of its outstanding invoices in this adjudication and therefore, I determine that XX shall pay my fees and expenses in full.

52. If either party pays more than its allocated portion of my fees and expenses then the other party shall within 7 days reimburse that party with the difference between its allocated share of my fees and expenses and the amount actually paid. 53. The determination of my fees and expenses for acting as the adjudicator does not alter the fact that pursuant to paragraph 25 of the Scheme and in accordance with Clause 10 of my Terms, the Parties remain jointly and severally liable for my fees and expenses.