Party Wall issues

PennysIntoPounds

Thanks all for your comments which I will mull over. @LightFlare part of the problem I suspect is that neighbour may have sent emails to pws that we weren't made aware of so while we thought things were being handled, they weren't.

SiL has spoken to a different pws for advice and they said that basically we're in the right and neighbour's demands are nonsense. Hopefully correct. We'll offer some compensation of course

Chief_of_Staffy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82144617#Comment_82144617

The upshot is, the neighbour is entitled to compensation only for loss, damage or gross inconvenience. He may well have been annoyed, frustrated that things were taking too long, irritated about a lack of communication or that water is dripping onto his side of the border, but he will get nothing from the courts on the strength of that. The best solution is what the OP appears to be doing; offering a fair price for objective loss, and if the neighbour wants to make a fool of themselves in court demanding £250 a week for having to look at scaffolding or £2k for a dusty bush, he can go ahead and do that.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82144915#Comment_82144915

…but he will get nothing from the courts on the strength of that…. and if the neighbour wants to make a fool of themselves in court…

Not sure my point was fully understood.

Primarily it is the PWS who decides what compensation (if any) is due, not the courts.

The award granted by a PWS can be challenged in court, but if the PWS says the inconvenience is worth £250/week, replacement plants will be £2k, and the OP has to pay for the crack to be repaired, then challenging that decision in court would be something for the OP to do, at their expense. They would need to show why they shouldn't pay what the PWS says.

I don't have a comprehensive understanding of the PWA, but I've enough awareness to know that folk offering advice to the OP on the chances of the neighbour winning (or not) in court on the basis of Tort Law have apparently not understood the important point that the PWA has been engaged in this situation (for reasons which aren't entirely clear), and therefore their assertions should be treated with due caution by the OP.

Please read the Act before claiming there has to be "gross inconvenience".

The fundamental question remains: what is the PWS doing, and have they commented on the claims?

WIAWSNB

Sounds more promising, PiP.

It is a simple fact, tho', that you cannot build a house - or two - without some noise, dust, and disruption, as the early buyers on a new estate usually discover. And you could have found yourself in the reverse situation, with your neigh doing the building, and you being the 'inconvenienced' - so how would you have reacted given the same situation?

Of course you wish to be on cordial terms with your new neighbours, but I doubt you've escaped the realisation that you now, almost certainly, ain't going to be 'buddies'; cordial, yes, friendly, of course, friends, unlikely.

Of course we don't have the full story yet, and certainly not the final outcome, but I think enough has been said and done by him to suggest a level of exploitativeness, claiming inflated sums for putting things right, levels of damage which are improbable, and a repair for a provably historic issue. All delivered in the classic aggressive legal-threatening manner with an unrealistic deadline to respond. In essence, the basketful of dirty tricks, designed purely to exert unfair pressure and make you react - capitulate - before examining the validity of his case.

That is what he has done. Do not lose sight of this. Would you have done this to him? No, nor would I.

So, you'll be cordial, yes, but I feel he has revealed his true calibre, and he is not a person to be trusted moving forwards. One of those folks who thrive on feeling wrong done by and aggrieved, usually with an eye on personal gain.

Assuming, as I suspect, that this neighbour will have little legitimate 'claim' - all of which, of course, you'd cover in any event - when you do do the decent thing by offering this 'sorry & thank you' gesture for his 'inconvenience', it should, imv, be made clear it's on this basis. Or his entitled mind will continue to be deludedly aggrieved.

Your gesture may be generous, but he's unlikely to think so.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82144888#Comment_82144888

SiL has spoken to a different pws for advice and they said that basically we're in the right and neighbour's demands are nonsense. Hopefully correct.

Professionally a PWS shouldn't really be commenting on the merits of a situation they haven't been appointed as PWS to. They are meant to be impartial and base their opinion on the facts of the case. A PWS can't be impartial if they've only heard the dispute from one side and may not have the full facts.

The other PWS could be correct, but at the moment it is the PWS who you've appointed whose opinion counts.

The circumstances in which a PWS can be replaced are limited by the PWA. If the neighbour is contacting the PWS by email and they aren't dealing with them there's a scenario in which the neighbour could trigger the replacement of the existing PWS and you end up paying for three of them to look at the case from the beginning (what they call de novo). How much have you paid the PWS to date?

WIAWSNB

From what you've told us, PiP, it does appear that your surveyor is letting both parties down. If so, and following on from S62's comments, you may wish to apply some proper pressure on him to start resolving these issues, because if the neighb calls for him to be removed due to a lack of action, it could get a lot more costly for you.

I suggest get in touch, and get some reassurance he is 'acting'. Paper trail, and then ombudsman. An evidenced trail is important. So cite the specific issues that need resolving, and ask...

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82144989#Comment_82144989

and a repair for a provably historic issue

That there was a historic issue doesn't mean there can't be a claim. What the PWS has to decide is whether the works have caused damage requiring repair.

There is some recent case law on this which shows just how complicated (and expensive) it can get.

As for the deadline - if this was a LBA then 7 days is far too short. But the deadlines in S10 of the PWA (for a PWS to act) are 10 days, and there's no obligation to contact the other party first, so asking for a response from the OP within 7 days probably isn't entirely unreasonable. The neighbour could (AIUI) just go straight to the PWS and start racking up additional costs for the OP.

Boohoo

From what Section 62 has just posted the OP should get hold of the pws assp to sort things out asap to limit the cost to them.

If the OP neighbour has contacted the pws about the issues and nothing has been done is the pws still active or done a bunk as they should of worked something out.

PennysIntoPounds

Thanks again for all your comments, I'll update when we hear anything. Just to note, we did pay for underpinning their wall before works started

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82145144#Comment_82145144

Just to note, we did pay for underpinning their wall before works started

That could be a quite important detail.

Did you directly employ a structural engineer to design the underpinning?