Overview
Most party wall matters should be resolved efficiently and proportionately. The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 is designed to resolve disputes, not create a fee-generating exercise.
Unfortunately, a minority of fee-driven surveyors use the process to increase costs, usually at the building owner's expense. These are some of the most common tactics.
1. Manufacturing or exaggerating disputes
Simple issues are sometimes presented as complex disputes. A surveyor may refuse to agree obvious points, ignore clear information or reopen matters that have already been resolved.
The longer the matter appears disputed, the easier it becomes to justify more time and higher fees.
Key point: If a straightforward issue remains unresolved despite clear evidence, ask who benefits from the delay.
2. Demanding unnecessary third-party reports
Some surveyors ask for reports with little or no connection to the notified works. Examples include:
- structural engineer reviews where the design is already clear;
- damp surveys with no evidence of damp;
- CCTV drain surveys unrelated to the works;
- vibration or noise assessments without any real trigger.
Reports should solve a real problem. They should not be used to create work.
Key point: Ask what risk the report addresses and why existing information is not enough.
3. Padding schedules of condition
A schedule of condition should be a clear and proportionate record. It is not meant to be a forensic survey of every cosmetic blemish.
Warning signs include:
- excessive time spent on trivial defects;
- hundreds of photographs with no useful structure;
- repeated inspections without good reason;
- disproportionate hourly claims.
Key point: Length is not quality. A good schedule is relevant, organised and useful if a damage claim arises.
4. Inflating time sheets
A time sheet is not proof that the time was reasonable. Common problems include:
- several hours claimed for reading a short notice;
- surveyor rates charged for administration;
- travel time claimed where work was remote;
- vague entries such as "review" or "consideration" without output.
Key point: Reasonable fees are payable. Excessive or poorly explained time is not automatically payable.
5. Blocking progress to manufacture more work
Delay can be profitable. Some surveyors ignore correspondence, claim documents were not received, ask the same questions repeatedly or raise new procedural points late.
Each delay creates more emails, more review time and more opportunity to charge.
Key point: Delay is not diligence. Repeated obstruction is a warning sign.
6. Pretending a notice is invalid without proper grounds
Declaring a notice invalid can restart the process and create months of delay. Sometimes the objection is based on personal preference rather than the Act.
Not every imperfection invalidates a notice. The question is whether the notice meets the statutory requirements and clearly communicates the works.
Key point: Tactical invalidation is often a fee-generation tool.
7. Over-specifying award conditions
Awards can be overloaded with unnecessary conditions, such as excessive scaffolding requirements, blanket working-hour restrictions, multiple inspections or specialist attendance where the risk does not justify it.
A good award regulates risk. It does not micromanage construction for the surveyor's benefit.
Key point: Conditions should be proportionate and connected to the notified works.
8. Bad-faith advice to adjoining owners
The worst examples involve surveyors creating fear to secure appointments. Warning signs include:
- "Do not consent - appoint me, it is free for you";
- exaggerated claims that the house may collapse;
- misleading statements that the building owner must always pay every cost;
- pressure to appoint immediately.
Surveyors should not recruit disputes. Their role is impartial once appointed.
Key point: Fear-based appointment tactics damage neighbour relations and increase costs.
9. Dragging matters to the third surveyor
Third surveyor referrals should be used for genuine disputes. They should not be used because a surveyor refuses to compromise on obvious points.
Unnecessary referrals can create large additional costs and delay without improving the award.
Key point: A third surveyor referral should resolve a real dispute, not reward failure to agree.
10. Supporting betterment damage claims
Damage claims should restore the adjoining owner to the appropriate position. They should not improve the property at the building owner's expense.
Examples of betterment include:
- full room redecoration for a small local crack;
- replacement of old worn finishes with new items;
- vague, inflated contractor quotes;
- claims unrelated to the notified works.
Key point: Making good is not upgrading.
11. Exploiting stressed homeowners
Some owners are unfamiliar with the Act and easily worried. Bad surveyors use jargon, urgency and confusion to secure appointments or justify fees.
Good surveyors explain. Bad surveyors obscure.
Conclusion
The best protection is early challenge. Ask for reasons, evidence, proportionality and clear outputs. The Act is designed to resolve disputes efficiently, not to reward delay, fear or inflated fees.