Neighbour extending wants a DIY Party Wall Agreement

Doozergirl

DRP said:

Doozergirl said:

DRP said:

Chapsley said:

Thanks for all your comments.

TBH it's not ideal having them hang over our side if they have to, but it's not the end of the world.

Re: gutters overhanging. Surely this is something to nip in the bud?

there's practical, and future development implications to allowing them to build over the boundary.

There's no way I would allow it. 

I think they're referring to people, not property.  

Some serious assumptions being made on this thread today.  

People hanging over their boundary? 


"I'll have a look and see what they've done with their gutters. TBH it's not ideal having them hang over our side if they have to, but it's not the end of the world."

Fair enough.  I didn't see that and it wasn't quoted.   There have been people
on their side already.  

Of course there shouldn't be gutters overhanging.  No sensible architect would design it that way.  

This thread should really be about sensible conversations and checking of design, not relying on a piece of leglislation that doesn't apply at all.  

Section62

Chapsley said:

Likewise we will ensure this document we're drawing up puts the liability for costs of repairs at his feet not his random builders. In fact I might stipulate in the document the name of the company that laid our patio and will ensure they are the ones to carry out any repairs. I'm hopeful it won't get to that point though!

Not really a good idea - if you don't get the wording exactly right there's a risk of binding yourself in a way that harms your position.

You can't be sure that company will be willing/able to take on any repair work, and there's also a risk (if you get into dispute with the neighbour) that the stipulation may be judged to be an unfair contract term. (that approach carries a risk you and the contractor could collude to make the neighbour pay more than a fair price for the repairs, and isn't something I'd ever agree to.)

It would be better to say that the neighbour will be responsible for compensating you for agreed* repairs on the basis of the average of three written quotes, the choice of repair contractor to be at your discretion.

That may involve you paying more to use your chosen contractor than the neighbour has to pay to you, but eliminates the argument whether your contractor is charging a fair price.  *That only leaves working out how the two of you will agree what (if any) repairs are needed.

GDB2222

Doozergirl said:

GDB2222 said:

Doozergirl said:

Hold up.  

Has anyone established that the party wall act even applies here? 

Your house is detached so there's limited application here.   How old is your house and how far is this new extension? 

Scaffolding on the drive and potential damage to nearby patios or gates doesn't fall under the act at all.  

I was wondering about that, but the op and the neighbour both seem to think it does apply. If the op gets a surveyor, he will obviously advise whether the act applies.

We're going to have that 'he' conversation again.  I know you don't like 'they' but this is the 21st century and 'the surveyor' or even 'the PWS' will also suffice if you object to 'they' that much. 

I'm sure a PWS will tell them if the Act applies, but employing one, or even two to cover the absolute periphery of the Act is a bit overkill.    It certainly won't cover the things that the OP actually seems concerned about.   

Anyway, we're that many posts down this thread and everyone is making assumptions and giving incorrect advice so far.  

I'm all in favour of some new, non gender specific pronouns being invented.  I’d be an early adopter. 

 I don’t think using plural pronouns instead works, nor avoiding pronouns altogether. I am happy to use she instead of he for a while, though.

laceythomson

As far as i know the act would apply only for 3 meters, but your jurisdiction may be different !