Party Wall Advice

ddsg100

Background: I own a house converted into two flats in the UK. Around 5 years ago I obtained planning approval to build a loft conversion for the upper flat. I was overseas at the time and it was incredibly difficult to make contact with the owners of the flats to one side to be able to know where to serve notices. The details with the land registry were outdated. It was my first project and I stupidly listened to my builder who said he spoke to the owner on the other side who was fine with the works and most people don't bother with party wall agreements - 'they're a waste of time!', his exact words, and I should just go ahead. I started the work in late 2019 and it finished in mid 2020 (it took longer than expected due to you know what!). Not at any point during the works did neighbours raise any concerns nor have they since, including any claims of damage. As far as I am aware the works have been carried out to a high standard and were signed off by building regs. However, it's always played on my mind a bit and I have since done another conversion somewhere else and went through the long, expensive and arduous process of getting a party. 

I am now considering selling the upstairs at some point in the next few years (I've had enough of the rental game!) and was wondering the following:

1) From what I can gather once works complete the party wall only really serves to document the condition of adjoining properties prior to works commencing. However, lets say one of the neighbours bought a claim against me wouldn't they still need to prove that any damage was caused by the works I carried out. Am I right in thinking it just puts me on the backfoot as I wouldn't be able to prove that the damage wasn't there before the work started.
2) I know certain legal actions are limited to 6 years under the stututory period of limitation. Would that apply here or could i potentially be liable for damage claims forever? Presumably, the longer it goes on the less likely a neighbour could claim any damage was caused by my works?
3) Would this complicate the sales process if i decided to sell or could a future purchase just by indemnity insurance?

Any advice on any of these questions welcome.  I appreciate what I did wasn't perhaps the right way of doing things but i can't go back in time, so please no responses like - you should have drawn up a party wall agreement. 

ThisIsWeird

"As far as I am aware..." the works have been signed off by Building Control?
If you can confirm that they have been, then you should be fine. No retrospective Party Wall agreement required.
(Unless possibly the neighb can prove they requested one, and the builder failed to comply? But I'd have thought that extremely unlikely - you'd surely have heard by now.)
PWA agreements can be useful, if, say, it's a particularly complex build or conversion, and/or there are concerns over boundaries - stuff like that. They should make 'issues' less likely to happen, but the bottom line is, if one person causes damage to a neighbouring property, then they are liable for this, PWA or not. In most cases, a PWA agreement is just not necessary.
So, if you have a BC sign-off, and no complaints from the neighb, then you should be fine.
The other potential issue is Planning. Was this required? Was it obtained? Mind you, 5 years should also see that as being non-actionable.
It sounds as tho' you are ok. But demand sight of that BCO completion! You might be able to access that from the LA's portal, so from anywhere in the world. Or, contact the LA directly. Or ask the builder.

Anticipate problems if it hasn't had BC oversight and sign-off. Expect to have to pay for a surveyor to check it thoroughly over, and/or adding an indemnity policy to cover future issues.

On the Indem Policy point, if you make the LA aware that it doesn't have a BC Cert by enquiring about it, then the policy will be void! In practice, BC don't (and can't after a few years) take action unless they have cause to suspect the work is 'unsafe'.

GR54

If your work hasn't trespassed across the boundary you were, presumably, relying on your common law rights (only).  And with no wish to exercise rights under the PWA  you were not a 'building owner', and so would not serve a notice. And the mantra, especially since 'Shah v Kyson & Power' is 'no notice, no Act'. It sounds to me as if the Act doesn't apply.  But if you have, say, raised a party wall there might be a problem.  However, see Nutt v Podger, where Mr Podger raised a party wall without serving notice, but Mr Podger was allowed to serve a retrospective Notice. 

ddsg100

ThisIsWeird said:

"As far as I am aware..." the works have been signed off by Building Control?
If you can confirm that they have been, then you should be fine. No retrospective Party Wall agreement required.
(Unless possibly the neighb can prove they requested one, and the builder failed to comply? But I'd have thought that extremely unlikely - you'd surely have heard by now.)
PWA agreements can be useful, if, say, it's a particularly complex build or conversion, and/or there are concerns over boundaries - stuff like that. They should make 'issues' less likely to happen, but the bottom line is, if one person causes damage to a neighbouring property, then they are liable for this, PWA or not. In most cases, a PWA agreement is just not necessary.
So, if you have a BC sign-off, and no complaints from the neighb, then you should be fine.
The other potential issue is Planning. Was this required? Was it obtained? Mind you, 5 years should also see that as being non-actionable.
It sounds as tho' you are ok. But demand sight of that BCO completion! You might be able to access that from the LA's portal, so from anywhere in the world. Or, contact the LA directly. Or ask the builder.

Anticipate problems if it hasn't had BC oversight and sign-off. Expect to have to pay for a surveyor to check it thoroughly over, and/or adding an indemnity policy to cover future issues.

On the Indem Policy point, if you make the LA aware that it doesn't have a BC Cert by enquiring about it, then the policy will be void! In practice, BC don't (and can't after a few years) take action unless they have cause to suspect the work is 'unsafe'.

Thanks very much  - this is really helpful.  Yes I received planning approval and building control sign off (sorry, the as far as I am aware was in relation to the works being carried out to a high standard - not BC oversight and sign off. It seems like i should be fine and if there was a claim I am in the same position I would be in with party wall award or not - they would need to prove it was caused by my work and if it was I would need to make good.  I really question for a loft conversion when you can't go over the boundary why these are ever needed???

ThisIsWeird

That sounds very positive, ddsg100.

Yes, if any subsequent issue arises, the normal process would apply.

Why a Party Wall Act agreement? Many folk insist on having this simply because they have been 'frightened' into doing so - some surveyors will check out planning applications, and then target the neighbours.

For most straight-forward builds, conversions, and extensions, it isn't needed. For some tricky builds, it can be useful. If there's any concern about the calibre of the neighbour carrying out the work - a history of them trying to literally push boundaries, for example - then that's a good case for insisting on one!

There are threads on here where neighbouring builds have caused problems, and a surveyor in such cases would have proved useful - it can be surprisingly tricky to sort out such issues yourself.

None of that appears to apply to you.

ddsg100

GR54 said:

If your work hasn't trespassed across the boundary you were, presumably, relying on your common law rights (only).  And with no wish to exercise rights under the PWA  you were not a 'building owner', and so would not serve a notice. And the mantra, especially since 'Shah v Kyson & Power' is 'no notice, no Act'. It sounds to me as if the Act doesn't apply.  But if you have, say, raised a party wall there might be a problem.  However, see Nutt v Podger, where Mr Podger raised a party wall without serving notice, but Mr Podger was allowed to serve a retrospective Notice. 

Thanks.  Some of this went over my head but think you're confirming I should be in the clear now too