prhp/AB31/118/10/comp

The Committee had noted that there is no specific guidance given within the legisiation as to any factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to abandon or proceed with an application where the Tenant has withdrawn it. In this particular case the Committee had considered the Tenant's application and decided to continue with it for three primary factors. Firstly, the Landlords' Chartered Building Surveyors own report of 1st September 2010 indicated that there were potential damp issues in relation to the sub-floor void (paragraph 13). This highlighted damp sand within the sub-floor void and considerably more so in the area underneath the ground floor bedroom. It also highlighted the relevant Code of Practice 102 from 1973 which recommended that sub-floor voids are covered with either 100mm of dense concrete or a damp resisting covering. Paragraph 14 also highiighted that plastic pipes providing ventilation to the surface of the sand may have been counter-productive.Secondly, it was apparent from the Tenant's submission that a previous Tenant had also complained of similar damp issues and it seemed to the Committee that there was a reasonable possibility that there as a recurring problem with the Property.Lastly, the position in relation to the Tenant's motives in withdrawing the application were unclear. Although the Tenant had originally withdrawn the application she had subsequently emailed direct to the Panel Office stating that she hoped the inspection would continue. It seemed to the Committee that there was a possibility that the Tenant's withdrawal had been as a result of some inducement. The Committee were concerned that despite the withdrawal the Tenant still appeared to be aggrieved. Taking all these factors in to account the Committee had been of the view that matters should proceed. Although it had become obvious upon the carrying out of the inspection that there was no issue with the repairing standard being met, the Committee po

File: