Strata Consult

Party Wall Legislation

The Party Wall act 1996 is the latest in a series of Acts of Parliament dealing with Party Wall matters; it is the first Act that extends the scope of legislation beyond the inner London area.

The failure of the ‘agreed surveyor’ appointment

‘It was the government’s intention that an agreed surveyor should be used whenever possible.’ (Frame 2010).The resolution of a dispute under the Party Wall Act requires the parties to the dispute to appoint a surveyor and this can be either an ‘agreed surveyor’ or each party can appoint his own surveyor.The uptake of agreed surveyors is relatively low, and it is surely a failure of the effectiveness of the Act that such appointments are not more common. In the end, regardless of whether one surveyor is appointed or two surveyors are appointed, an Award is served upon the parties to the dispute. Having two surveyors agree an Award can be excessive and burdensome, particularly for the building owner who ordinarily foots the bill.

The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: Intention vs Reality

The intention of the Act, and the actions of those who administer it, are two very different things.This article looks at the intention of the Act, and it is vital that this is understood, so that the surveyors who administer it can be held to account.Relying on surveyors who have forgotten the intention of the Act is dangerous. It leads to excessive fees, unnecessary fees, overzealous behaviour, dispute-generation and abuse of process.

Dealing with difficult neighbours: claiming they didn’t receive a notice or award etc.

When serving a notice relating to the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, it can be incredibly frustrating when a neighbour states he hasn’t received it, especially if you feel that he is being difficult or obstructive. Wherever possible, giving the neighbour the benefit of doubt is advisable. However, in some cases, this can be detrimental, and some neighbours can just be plain difficult and malicious.It is important therefore, to understand that the onus is on the neighbour to prove that they didn’t receive a notice, award or other correspondence.Documents can be delivered in person, by post or by email. The burden of proof seems to be higher with post, than in person, in that some people request evidence of postage, yet few people would request a video or other evidence of a person delivering mail by hand.There is no requirement to provide proof of service. Section 15 of the Act ‘service of notices etc.’ does not place the burden upon the building owner of having to prove service.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top