The Żebbuġ local council has been ordered to release a €2,000 guarantee that had been made over a construction project concluded in 2022, but which it is refusing to release back to the developer.

The council even ignored proceedings before the Small Claims Tribunal, failing not only to file a reply to the claim but also to turn up for hearings, despite being duly notified.

The case was instituted by Marcus Cacciattolo, who is chasing the €1,893 he had deposited with the council when he was carrying out a construction project in the locality. He said that although the project was concluded in March 2022, the council refused to release the guarantee.

The tribunal, chaired by Ilona Schembri, heard that Cacciattolo’s project involved internal alterations to a first floor maisonette in Triq Lord Gort corner with Triq l-Irvell tal-Qassisin and the construction of an additional two two-bedroom apartments and a one-bedroom penthouse.

The permit was issued in March 2019 and the project was completed within two years. As part of the planning conditions, Cacciattolo had to deposit the amount “to ensure that the street is properly restored”.

According to the PA condition, “the bank guarantee shall only be released after the architect submits a post-construction condition report together with photographs evidencing compliance with this condition, accompanied by clearance from the local council. The clearance from the local council is to be endorsed by the mayor and the executive secretary”.

The judgment made no mention of this condition but stated that the Żebbuġ council had failed to show up for the hearings, despite being notified, and had also failed to file a reply to the claim where it could have explained why the amount was not released.

The tribunal noted that the council’s failure to file any replies to the claim was not automatically considered an admission of the claim but a contestation.

“Although the defendant local council remained absent, this does not mean that it abandoned every submission it could make in the case. In case of default, the onus remains on the plaintiff to submit evidence to the degree of probability and to submit the best evidence,” the tribunal observed.

The tribunal noted how the plaintiff presented a deposit receipt, confirming under oath that the amount was still due.

“Such documentation leaves no doubt in the mind of this tribunal that the defendant local council is obliged to release the amount in favour of the plaintiff,” it ruled, as it upheld Cacciattolo’s request for the council to pay eight per cent interest on the amount, from the date of completion.

The tribunal also ordered the council to foot the entire expenses related to the court proceedings.