Building Work Questions

JBPhysio

Hi.
I am a joint freeholder of a victorian conversion. I own the ground floor flat. The top floor flat has just been sold and the new owners want to do an extensive refurbishment including an extension. They want to remove and repair the floor and put in sound proofing, as part of the refurb and claim it is not structural work despite the party wall act saying the floor between 2 flats is a party structure. We have argued back and forth and I have now just received a notice through the door stating that they are giving notice to repair the joists of the whole floor above my flat ( their floor, my ceiling in 3 days time and I will need a schedule of condition on my flat). This is provisioned in the lease that they are allowed to repair the joists with due notice. I am stating that they need a license to alter to do internal works - change kitchen, bathrooms, add internal walls etc  - they are claiming they don't need anything. Solicitors are already involved as is a building surveyor who they have ignored when he said the floor was a party structure. So they are planning to come in in 3 days and rip up the floors and do a full replacement without any consent. Where do I stand ? In principle I have no objection to them doing a refurb, but I want to make sure that the building and my flat are either not damaged or if it is, fully repaired. 

Doozergirl

You're saying they need a license from whom? 

If you want to invoke the Party Wall Act then ask them to serve notice.  If you don't have any objection then consent to it. 

The law protects your property whether you have a party wall award or not for works to the floor.   They would be liable for any damage anyway.  

Are they offering you a schedule of condition?  Your post isn't clear.  

Of course they don't need a license to change their kitchen or bathrooms.  

They might need freeholder consent to carry out structural works, but they own 50%, you're not going to unreasonably withhold consent, and that doesn't protect you any more from damage than you already are.  

I'd be more concerned with insurance for the works than licenses.  

ThisIsWeird

JB, I'd suggest due diligence regarding the builder they are using - are they reputable? Liability insurance in place? And it would be nice to know exactly what the proposed work to the floor/ceiling will involve.
Other than that, why on earth would you not want the floor/ceiling fixed and seemingly improved, in particular with regard to noise transmission? I'd be saying 'Yup - you bet you can!'
What are your actual concerns here? 

FreeBear

ThisIsWeird said: What are your actual concerns here?

Victorian properties had lath & plaster ceilings, often with ornate coving and other detailing - Lime plaster is prone to cracking and large sections could collapse if subjected to shock from above.

Much of the lath & plaster could have been replaced with modern materials (i.e. plasterboard) during the initial refurbishment. Depending on how long ago the refurbishment was done, plasterboard could have been fixed with nails - These have a nasty habit of "popping" which results in long cracks appearing between the boards.

Repairing cracks in ceilings can be messy work and will cause disruption.