The contract in question is the NHF (National Housing Federation) Schedule of Rates Form of Contract 2011, which we, at Anthony Collins Solicitors, comprehensively revised and updated for Rand/M3 in 2011, and still keep up-to-date for them.
The court case was a decision of the Court of Appeal in Sutton Housing Partnership Limited v Rydon Maintenance Limited [2017] EWCA 359.
I was pleased to see that the contract passed scrutiny with flying colours, even though Sutton had substituted their own KPI (Key Performance Indicator) Framework for the KPI Framework document provided with the template contract. Had Sutton used the version from the template contract, both the MAP (Minimum Acceptable Performance) levels and worked examples would have been clearly set out in the KPI Framework document. Instead, in the KPI framework drafted by Sutton, the MAP levels were expressed as “examples”, leading to a concern whether those MAP levels were contractual requirements.
In the case, the court decided that unless the “example” figures were treated as being the contractual MAP levels, the contractual provisions dealing with termination for failure to achieve those MAP levels would have been redundant. As the court had established that the MAP levels were contractual requirements, they upheld Sutton’s right to terminate the contract (following a notice period to give Rydon an opportunity to improve performance) as a result of Rydon’s failure to achieve those MAP levels.
Although this was a victory for Sutton, they won’t be able to recover the full costs of the court proceedings from Rydon, and will be out of pocket as a result. Sutton initially lost in the High Court and, therefore, had to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Had the MAP levels been clearly expressed, as set out in the template KPI Framework provided with the NHF Schedule of Rates Form of Contract 2011, it is very unlikely that Rydon would have even gone to court, let alone have won in the High Court.
This case demonstrates that when you are amending template contracts and replacing documents within them, those bespoke documents and amendments need to cover everything clearly in the template documents they are being drafted to replace.
Rather than substituting whole documents, it is usually better and safer to keep the documents provided as part of the template contract, and add into them any bespoke amendments (such as to add financial incentivisation, as Sutton wished to do) rather than replacing them altogether.
If you would like more information about this topic, please contact Andrew Millross. For more information about the work that we do at Anthony Collins Solicitors, please visit our website.
Latest news
New code puts complaint handling in the spotlight
he updated Housing Ombudsman’s (HO) Complaint Handling Code (the New Code) will become a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024 and will bring a significant step change for registered providers (RPs).
Monday 25 March 2024
Read moreAnthony Collins appoints returning partner as new head of funding
Specialist law firm Anthony Collins (AC) has appointed a new head of funding, returning partner, Jon Coane. Jon brings with him over 25 years of experience as a social impact […]
Wednesday 13 March 2024
Read moreLatest webinars and podcasts
PODCAST: 12.07% holiday accrual is back… But not for everyone!
In the podcast we will outline the new Working Time Regulations legislation in detail, noting when the provisions coming into force, whilst also providing practical examples and guidance for employers across all sectors.
Friday 1 December 2023
Read moreRenters Reform Bill webinar – June 2023
The Renters Reform Bill proposes a seismic change to housing management practices, abolishing assured shorthold tenancies and 21 notices entirely and making changes relating to rent increases, pets, possession grounds and more.
Friday 18 August 2023
Read more