In this article, we are going to be looking at Party Wall Notices and the response options available to adjoining owners.
When it comes to responding to a Party Wall Notice this can be done in one of three ways.
In an effort to ensure these are better understood, we’re going to use a traffic light analogy!
CONSENT (GREEN LIGHT)
The first Party Wall Notice response option is to consent.
Upon confirming their consent, the adjoining owner will bring the Party Wall procedures to a close.
This response means there isn’t a need for a Party Wall Award, however if a dispute was to arise as a result of the construction works further down the line, the adjoining owner can still dissent to the Notice at that stage.
AGREED SURVEYOR DISSENT (AMBER LIGHT)
The second Party Wall Notice response option available is to dissent and appoint an agreed Party Wall Surveyor.
Under this option, the building owner and the adjoining owner would share in the appointment of one Party Wall Surveyor who would be responsible for solely administering the procedures as set out by the Party Wall etc Act 1996.
Agreed Surveyors have a duty to act impartially, taking into consideration the planned works from the perspective of the adjoining owner’s property.
The conclusion of the agreed Party Wall Surveyor’s role will be to agree a Party Wall Award which regularise the planned works and protects the adjoining owner against issue and damage resulting from the works.
TWO PARTY WALL SURVEYORS (RED LIGHT)
The third Party Wall Notice response option available is that the adjoining owner can dissent and appoint their own Party Wall Surveyor.
This is similar to the Agreed Surveyor dissent option, although in this case, there will be two respective Party Wall Surveyors, one acting on behalf of the building owner and the other acting on behalf of the adjoining owner.
These two Surveyors will then work together to agree a Party Wall Award.
WHO PAYS PARTY WALL SURVEYOR FEES?
Irrespective of the response option the adjoining owner selects, the building owner will need to carry the burden of the fees.
This logic stems from the fact that the building owner’s works compel a risk upon the adjoining owner’s property. It would therefore be unreasonable for the adjoining owners to have to incur cost to protect themselves against that risk.