When carrying out building work of any kind to your property, it always pays to do due diligence and ensure that you’re working within the parameters of the law, no matter what your project is, otherwise you could find yourself faced with serious problems, including unwanted costs.
Generally speaking, your project will require service of notice under the Party Wall Act 1996 if you are proposing any of the following work:
– Building a freestanding wall on a boundary
– Building an external wall forming part of a building up to or astride the boundary
– Work to a party structure (for example a party wall)
– Removal of projections underground or any oversailing projection in the way of your proposed construction or;
– Excavation within three or six metres of neighbouring structures.
If it transpires that your project does fall under the Act, you will need to ensure that all adjoining owners are notified by way of written notice in accordance with The Act.
If you start work without giving notice, adjoining owners can seek to stop the relevant construction work by court injunction (interim injunction).
What Is A Party Wall Award?
When notice has been served, which is needed in order to invoke the statutory procedure (recent case law has set precedent that notice is indeed required in order to use the Act’s dispute resolution framework), adjoining owner(s) can either consent in writing or dissent to the proposals.
If a dispute arises under the Act, the process usually leads to an award in order to authorise the work which has the effect of extinguishing the dispute. Making an Award under the Act will require party wall surveyor(s) to be appointed.
The Two Surveyor Route is where each party appoints their own party wall surveyor, and the two surveyors have a duty to make and serve an award acting as efficiently as possible. Usually the building owner receives two bills (an invoice from each surveyor appointed).
Another option under S. 10 (1) (a) of the Act, is The Agreed Surveyor Route. This is where the parties jointly concur in the appointment of a single agreed surveyor who will balance the interests of the parties and will make and serve the award.
TIPS ON HOW TO REDUCE COSTS
An adjoining owner may consent to the notified proposals under the Act, subject to a schedule of condition. This way, a formal award does not need to be made, but a condition record of the adjoining owner’s property has been prepared prior to start of the work which can be referred to by the parties if needed.
This approach will cut party wall surveyor costs to perhaps around £500. The building owner may seek to comfort the adjoining owner in providing written confirmation that they will resolve any damage caused by their works at their sole cost.
In pursuing the agreed surveyor route leading to an award, there is only one surveyor rather than two. Therefore, costs to the building owner are usually approximately cut in half.
Further, if the proposed construction work is straightforward in nature, it could be said that the adjoining owner acting reasonably, has a duty to concur in the appointment of an agreed surveyor. As stated above, this will usually reduce costs for the building owner by around 50 per cent.
Turning to Amir-Siddique vs Kowaliw 2018 (Case Law), Judge Bailey who is now retired stated:
…it was the Respondents (the Adjoining Owners) rather than Mr Godwin (the Adjoining Owner’s Surveyor,) who insisted on the “two-surveyor route” as the Respondents termed it. This was unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Respondents. They were well aware that the Appellant wished to keep surveyor’s costs to a minimum.
The Appellant was prepared to accept the Respondents’ choice of surveyor to act as Agreed Surveyor. The Respondents could be assured that their interests would be looked after by Mr Godwin acting as agreed surveyor as adjoining owner appointed surveyor.
There can be no obvious reason for the Respondents to insist that Mr Godwin acted only as their party wall surveyor with the inevitable consequence that the Appellant had to incur the cost of a second party wall surveyor, and they offered none. The Respondents felt entitled to insist on the “two-surveyor route” but not, in my judgement, on the basis that the Appellant had to pay all the additional costs.
… in light of the fact that the unreasonable behaviour of the Respondents has caused the Appellant to incur the wholly unnecessary cost of Mr Grewal’s fees of £595, I consider that it is just to allow the appeal so as to provide that the Respondents are liable to pay Mr Grewal’s fees (Mr Grewal was the Building Owner’s Surveyor).
So, there could be situations where the adjoining owner has an obligation to concur in the appointment of a single agreed surveyor, otherwise they could be landed with the surveyor’s bill themselves.