Adjudicator rules in favour of Ramsgate widow forced to fight for renovation works money owed to late husband

A Ramsgate mum-of-two says her family suffered significant upset and anguish after having to fight for payment of her husband’s building contract invoice following his death.

Jo Mapp, 55, had to go to adjudication to pursue payment of husband Roy Ankers invoice for renovation works on a property in Whitstable.

Ray sent a £26,892 invoice for the RIBA contract project on July 15 which was for works carried out up to 27 June. Sadly Ray, 57, who had been fighting cancer, died two days later. He had been expected to make a full recovery but died following medical complications.

Jo said: “My husband was project managing a complete rebuild and was 16 weeks into an initial 20 week project that may have needed to be extended due to issues with access and client changes. Most of what he had been contracted to do, had been done.

“He invoiced but died two days later. The money he was paid was to run the job and keep materials and workers on site. Previously the client had paid all invoices on time but not this one.

“I had to cobble together £15,000 out of my own money to make sure the workers were paid.”

RIBA contract

The project to renovate a property for client Michael Elson was agreed under a RIBA contract with Ratliff Landells architects carrying out administration of the contract.

Work on the renovation ran until Friday 18th July with the foreman shoring up the site.

Jo says she was upset with the handling of the process to get payment, saying that Tam Landell appeared to suggest mediation and forwarded a reduced payment offer of £8000 but no methodology to show how that sum was reached. Jo says she feels an independent valuation report was “dismissed.”

Jo said: “There is mediation and adjudication. Adjudication is binding, meaning the client had to pay if it was ruled in my favour. Mediation is not binding and I felt that it would be undervaluing the work of a man who had already died, diminishing his professional contribution and the financial security of his family.”

Adjudication process

Jo took the case the adjudication, which is a way of resolving disputes in construction contracts.

The legislation sets out certain minimum procedural requirements which enable either party to a dispute to refer the matter to an independent adjudicator, who will then make a decision within 28 days.

Once the adjudicator has made their decision, the other party must comply with it: if they do not, a court hearing to compel compliance can usually be obtained in a few weeks.

In Jo’s case, on behalf of the estate of her husband of 27 years, the application for adjudication was made in November and the official referral took place at the end of January this year. Part payment was made by Mr Elson following the adjudication notice.

‘Death does not undo payment obligation’

A decision was made by adjudicator Nicholas Gould on February 13.

In his conclusion he said: “Mr Elson was in breach of Clause 7 of the Contract and Mr Anker’s estate is entitled to full payment and interest is due on the account at 5% above current Bank of England base rate.

“The client still owes payment for work properly carried out before the builder’s passing.

“The builder’s death does not extinguish the client’s obligation to pay for: work already completed, materials supplied, (and) any other sums that had already fallen due.”

He added: “Death does not undo the payment obligation.”

A payment made by Mr Elson on December 3 of £18,723.00 inclusive of VAT, following notice for adjudication, left an outstanding sum of £8,169.60 which the adjudicator said he had to pay to close the account.

It was noted that there had been no formal payment certificate or pay less notice issued on behalf of Mr Elson for the final invoice as required under the contract.

A Pay Less Notice is a formal document under the UK Construction Act allowing a payer to pay less than the amount previously certified or applied for. It must be served within specific, often short, contractual timeframes, setting out the new sum intended to be paid and the detailed calculation for the reduction. If invalidly served or late, the full original amount usually becomes payable.

Jo said: “I was forced to go to adjudication and he lost. He had to pay. The anguish me and my boys have been through is awful but I’m most angry with Ratliffe and Landells, (particularly over) inappropriate communication that should never have been directed to me.

““Ray was deeply loyal to his work, even under these circumstances, and that commitment never wavered. The emotional impact on my family during a period of acute grief was significant.”

‘Distressing circumstances’

Mr Elson said there had been disagreement over the valuation amount but he respected the decision of the adjudicator.

He said: “This matter concerned a contractual payment dispute that arose in highly unusual and distressing circumstances following the sudden death of the contractor.

“There was a genuine disagreement regarding valuation and contractual process during a very difficult period for all involved. The matter was referred to adjudication under the RIBA building contract.

“The adjudicator determined that, under the strict payment provisions of the contract, the notified sum had become due because no formal pay less notice had been issued within the contractual timeframe. This was a procedural determination under construction payment law.

“I respected the decision and complied in full immediately. The matter is now concluded.”

‘Dispute resolution’

Tam Landell said: “This was a tragic situation with Mr Anker’s family grieving his sudden death and a client with the works to their home a long way from completion. Death during construction is a complex contractual issue. As such it needed time and expertise to come to a solution.

“After Mr Anker passed away, part of the payment for the works invoiced were left outstanding. Our role in this circumstance was to finalise administration of the contract between Mr Anker and the client. We were asked to value the works that had been carried out so far. This took time so all the information could be given to us by Mr Anker’s estate.

“It would have been very difficult for Mr Anker’s family. At the same time it would have been hard for the client who was facing uncertainty about the delay to the completion of the work to their home and the financial consequences that entailed.

“Having valued the works there remained an amount in dispute. We did not suggest that Mr Anker’s estate should accept a lower payment. We were simply fulfilling our obligation to administer the contract. At that stage, given the fact that there remained an amount outstanding, our responsibility was to explain the dispute resolution options in the contract. We drew attention to these on several occasions, the first being to both parties in September ’25.

“At no point did we recommend mediation as a legal route, we are not able to give legal advice. We simply explained the options available under the contract. We were not paid by either party during this time nor for any of the work done to administer the contract. We had nothing to gain or lose from the outcome of this situation.

“We actively encouraged both parties to seek dispute resolution given the complexity of the issue and were very glad this was followed in January this year by the appointment of an adjudicator.

“The adjudicator reached a decision swiftly, bringing clarity to the situation by applying case law. The process was outlined, an outcome was reached and the final account was settled. All parties remained active and participated in the whole process.”

Tam added: “Mr Anker was a kind and incredibly hard-working man. We hope, now the matter has been settled, that Mr Anker’s family and the client will be able to put this difficult time behind them.”

‘A family in acute grief’

Jo, whose sons are 18 and 21, said: “What compounded this situation was not merely the contractual dispute, but what I feel was a complete absence of judgment and humanity at a time when my husband had just died and my children had just lost their father. We were a family in acute grief being made to fight for what my husband had earned.

“At a time when we should have been left to our grief, we were instead dragged through unnecessary adjudication. My boys are still in shock that we had to go through this.”