Overview
Guidance note 10 deals with engineering input in party wall matters. In our view, it would benefit from revision because modern party wall work needs clearer guidance on appointments, scope, liability, fees and communication between surveyors and engineers.
This article sets out the main weaknesses and a practical proposal for improvement.
1. Why revision is needed
Engineering input can be useful, especially on basement projects, deep excavations, piling, underpinning and complex structural works. The problem is that the process is often unclear.
Unclear appointments and vague scopes can lead to:
- duplicated work;
- excessive fees;
- late comments that delay the project;
- confusion over who the engineer is advising;
- uncertainty about liability;
- disputes about whether the input was necessary.
A modern guidance note should reduce those problems.
2. Appointment and payment
There should be a standard form of appointment for an advising engineer instructed by the adjoining owner's surveyor. It should make clear:
- who instructs the engineer;
- who the engineer reports to;
- who pays;
- what the engineer is being asked to review;
- what the engineer is not being asked to do.
In many cases, it may be sensible for the building owner to pay the engineer directly, while preserving the independence of the adjoining owner's surveyor.
3. Scope and deliverables
The engineer's task should be defined clearly. A useful formulation would be:
"To review and report on whether the building owner's proposed works are designed and sequenced so as to avoid, or minimise, the risk of damage or unnecessary inconvenience to the adjoining owner."
Standard deliverables could include:
- a short review letter;
- a schedule of comments;
- a risk-ranking table;
- a clear list of any information still required.
4. Liability and reporting
The engineer should usually be responsible to the surveyor who instructs them, unless a wider appointment is expressly agreed. The guidance should recommend minimum professional indemnity insurance and standard disclaimer wording.
This avoids the common confusion where everyone relies on the engineer's comments, but nobody is clear about the legal relationship.
5. Information flow
Engineering input should be early and organised. A checklist should be used before the engineer is instructed. That checklist might include:
- structural drawings;
- calculations;
- sequencing information;
- temporary works information;
- monitoring proposals;
- method statements;
- relevant site investigation information.
6. Fees and timescales
The guidance should give indicative fee ranges linked to project type and complexity. It should also encourage early instruction, because late engineering comments can cause unnecessary delay and duplication.
7. Modern working methods
The guidance should recognise the way professionals now work. It should allow for email, annotated PDFs, digital plan exchange, electronic signatures and, where relevant, BIM references.
Conclusion
A revised guidance note should be clearer, more practical and more transparent. The aim should be simple: useful engineering input where it is needed, without duplicated work, unclear liability or excessive cost.