Party Wall Survey

chappers

MisterBaxter wrote: »

As I see it the absolute worse case for the OP is as follows and assumes that the neighbour and their surveyor are competent and aggressive or that neighbour is weak and does as their surveyor tells them.

1. Neighbour informs OP of their obligations under PWA, OP either complies or ignores.
2. OP ignores and commences work, neighbour writes to OP again to remind them of their obligations under PWA and suggest that they cease work until PWA is complied with along with the threat of injunction if they don't.! OP either complies or ignores.
3. OP ignores and continues with work, neighbour applies for injunction. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse but the OP can't even claim ignorance as they have shown blatant disregard having being warned twice of their obligations. Court grants injunction and now requires! OP comply with PWA.(case law exists)
4. OP serves notice,! defecto position is dissent as matter has already been to Court and PWA is now being followed under Court instruction.
5. PWA Award made, injunction is lifted and works proceed to completion.

OP has still had all of the costs associated with PWA as they would have had if notices had been served at the outset but now has the additional costs of the injunction and has a completely destroyed relationship with neighbour. Don't forget the additional builders costs for Prelims or postponement, the builder may have also moved on to another job and now can't complete the works for a while.

In writing this I am starting to think this is a very easy way to make money, if only I were a complete git, particularly having read these forums and seen just how many people have a blatant disregard to the requirements of the PWA.

If there are more of these surveying firms coming to the market it could be the next injuries claim! type industry in the making.

Totally agree it already looks to be happening with this becoming amore common occurance.
Simple answer is change the law make it compulsorary and licence practitioners and regulate the fees chargeable and fine for non-compliance.

MisterBaxter

Chappers - there is a case where an adjoining owner took the Building Owner to Court for damages arising following [defective] building works, the Building Owner hadn't applied PWA. As yiu know usually in Court both parties present their case and it's decided on balance of probability. In this particular case the Judge was not happy with the Building Owners blatant disregard for the law in not applying PWA so placed the entire burden of proof on the Building Owner to prove they hadn't caused the damage. Can't remember the exact names but one of the two parties to the case was a company called Roadrunner (or something very similar). This links the general duty of care and PWA in a way not normally seen.

The case where damages were awarded in lieu of demolition was the Ho case and is on the website I linked. Definitely worth a read as it was also the case where it was made clear that verbal agreement wasn't consent so there were multiple issues.

What they all show is that although PWA itself may not have direct penalties attached there are implications and you're right proper regulation and possibly even incorporating it into the Building Regulations in some way would perhaps stave off some issues.

Get it wrong or simply ignoring it isn't risk free.

DRP

MisterBaxter wrote: »

In this particular case the Judge was not happy with the Building Owners blatant disregard for the law in not applying PWA so placed the entire burden of proof on the Building Owner to prove they hadn't caused the damage

Is it a 'blatant disregard for the law' not to invoke the PWA ?

If all parties (neighbours) are happy, why even involve the PWA?

MisterBaxter

DRP wrote: »

Is it a 'blatant disregard for the law' not to invoke the PWA ?

If all parties (neighbours) are happy, why even involve the PWA?

As the matter was in Court relations had clearly failed and the Judge obviously felt it was a 'blatant disregard', clearly jobs that pass without incident will never invite comment from a Judge in the first place. Technically the Act is a legal requirement and specifies when and how notices should be served so if you don't then I would say it is blatant disregard for the law, you know you are supposed to comply and you know what is needed to comply but you choose not to even if you feel the reason for doing so is appropriate. Disregard for the law invites repercussions.

There is also case law that states an 'over the fence' agreement is not sufficient to comply with the requirements of PWA, again this is only ever going to be an issue if the matter ends up in Court but the caution is that if relations do happen to break down the handshake agreement you thought you had may not stand up to scrutiny in Court when applied to PWA.

The key in all of the case law is that for one reason or another they ended up in Court. In every case I read where PWA hadn't been followed the Judge generally favoured the claimant over the defendant because they had failed to comply with their legal obligations and had denied the claimant the rights afforded to them by PWA so the Court was taking the opportunity to rebalance and redress.

If your ignore PWA just make sure you do everything right and whatever you do don't upset your neighbours that way you hopefully won't end up in Court. Also remember that a dodgy builder can destroy any goodwill in minutes and it is the Building Owner who has the obligations under PWA.

These are all worse case scenario but the fact that there is case law shows that it happens. I just think that people need to go in with their eyes open.

Taking it back to the OP it would appear relations have broken down because of an uninvited third party who is forcing matters so the risks are clearly greater.

suet89

HI My neighbours are building an extension close to my house had the letter from Vincent brown associates and signed and sent it back not really thinking it through. My neighbours now been told they will have a big bill, i am happy to cancel this surveyed but don't know if i can i have now had a letter from the neighbours with the proposed start date for work, should I send this to Vincent Brown or can I can and find a cheaper solution. I don't want to end up with any fees

teneighty

Because you instructed them you could be liable for any abortive fees.

Your best bet is to hope the instruction is invalid.....did everyone who has ownership of the property sign? If not it is invalid and you can dis-instruct them. That is a common mistake VB make apparently. You can also check the wording of the instruction as before the neighbour serves notice there is nothing for them to be instructed for other than to act as your advisor at your expense.

Are you sure the work being undertaken actually falls under the Party Wall Act? Vincent Brown just send out mass speculative letters to planning applications for extensions and loft conversions similar to spam emails from West Africa hoping that some people will take the bait without checking.

Above all speak to your neighbour and explain what has happened.

If the instruction is valid and the work does come under the Party Wall Act you may have stick with Vincent Brown and have a very unhappy neighbour. I think you'll probably be taken off their Christmas card list.

gamb2

Suet89,

Ten eighty's advice is fairly sound and hopefully you have made a mistake when you completed the form. One of my neighbours managed to bore Vincent Brown to death through a series of queries and solicitor letters, so even if you did not make a mistake, they might think that it is not worth their time to pursue you.

I received letters from about four or five of these sharks when my neighbour applied for planning permission. Talk to your neighbours and, should you not object to their extension (and it does fall under the Party Wall Act), then see if their architect can act for both of you.

MisterBaxter

@Suet89 - What have you actually instructed them on. If the neighbour hasn't yet served a Party Wall notice (or you haven't done anything with it if they have) then you technically can't have appointed Vincent Brown as your Party Wall Surveyor under the PWA as you haven't yet dissented so can't appoint a PW Surveyor.

If you have appointed VB to act in your interests in Party Wall matters then that is something different and by writing to your neighbours they have already started working for you under your instruction; the first stage of this being to remind your neighbour of their obligations under the PWA.

Did they provide you with any sort of fee structure for the work they would be doing for you in advising you in Party Wall matters prior to becoming the Party Wall Surveyor? If not then I would argue that their commission at this stage is either invalid as no fees were agreed or they had agreed to do the initial letter writing phase at no charge to you.

Once your neighbour actually serves their Party Wall notice on you there is absolutely nothing stopping you from giving consent at which point the Vincent Brown can't act as by consenting your will have waived your rights to appoint a Party Wall Surveyor; however if they did provide a fee breakdown it could cover such eventualities and you could become liable for those fees.

If they didn't provide a fee structure then I would tell them that you have no objections to the work being done by your neighbour and that it is your intention to consent; you therefore have no need for their services as a Party Wall Surveyor in this instance.

chiny

I'm dealing with a couple (one each side in a terrace) of neighbours on behalf of my elderly mother. She has always gone for charm and it has meant that not only are the neighbours being helpful but neighbours for several doors each way up the road are on her side (watching, tackling errant builders, etc).

At one point, I did have to invoke a clause in a Party Wall Agreement but even that was all done amicably. Just in case, I do have photos, witnesses etc... what they (US & USSR) referred to as "trust with verification".

Having neighbours build can never be fun but best to avoid stress, in my view.