-
Looking for a smarter way to manage your heating this winter? We’ve been testing the new Aqara Radiator Thermostat W600 to see how quiet, accurate and easy it is to use around the home. Click here read our review.
Is this a party wall or not?
- Thread starter Nomadic78
- Start date
-
- Tags
- party wall agreement
I believe that is the case. The fees for the surveyor are quite high and I suspect it was unsolicited letter.
To resolve the situation, I believe there are three options.
1: I agree the party wall boundary and get it drawn up as a civil matter
2: Get a chartered land surveyor to determine. Costs would be shared between us and if they determined the wall was a party, then an award could be served
3: State that I don't believe the wall is party and proceed. In this case that adjoining owner could try to force an injunction. For that to stand, he would have to acknowledge the wall was a party wall and accept enduring liability for it.
Thanks
Dan
I'm still confused by this terminology
Are you the building owner (having the work done) or an adjoining owner?
Two neighbours are using the same surveyor, you are using a second surveyor?
The neighbour is below you, so these are flats?
Has a PW Notice been served and is there a dispute - formal or by default?
If there is a dispute and an Award is being drawn up, has a third surveyor been nominated?
I am the BO. A flat (freehold) with a flat above. No issue between me and the flat.
When I refer to above and below, I mean the image. The neighbours with the shorter property is the one who wants a PWA. He was going to accept the works and several days later said the neighbour on the bottom part of the image was getting a surveyor and he wanted a second opinion.
The neighbour on the bottom image is having a PWA drawn up by a second surveyor. That’s fine. But that surveyor has given advice to the other neighbour saying the wall is a type A not type B wall. And said that even awarding the PWA doesn’t mean change the determination. But it is or isn’t a party wall, it cannot be transient.
That's not how it works. The Party Wall Award is driven by the Building Owners surveyor, the adjoining owner's surveyor usually just has a watching brief to check and agree what the building owners surveyor is doing. Earlier you said that you had your own surveyor or are you in fact both using the same surveyor as an "agreed surveyor"? I did think it was odd that the adjoining owners surveyor was doing the condition survey, that is most irregular unless you or your surveyor specifically agreed to it.
If the first neighbour's surveyor is saying the wall in question to the second neighbour's property is a Type A party wall that contradicts what you have said previously. A Type A party wall is a straightforward definition of a wall built astride the boundary. If he is saying it is a Type A party wall that is permanent and fixed with both neighbours sharing ownership and responsibilities. It does not need the property deeds to be updated, it is a matter of fact (assuming it is indeed built astride the boundary). It is quite common for the house deeds to be silent in respect of the party wall.
I am beginning to think that you have got yourself in a muddle with the process and the terminology. You probably need to go back to square one and explain clearly and concisely with a timeline who has done what? Or better still, if you have indeed appointed your own surveyor ask him to explain.
Starting from the top. Hopefully this addresses the questions.
Building works are to an outrigger building. Ground floor flat (see extension diagram above). There is a flat above who is the co-freeholder. No issue with them.
I then have 2 neighbours, the one who has the shorter building, let's call him no.8 and the neighbour who is equal length to me, let's call him no.4.
A schedule of condition was offered to all 3 parties. My co freeholder accepted that offer and the works. N.4 appointed an adjoining surveyor. No.8 originally accepted that there was no party wall agreement because of the distance and he did speak to my surveyor.
At some point No.4 spoke to No.8 and the position changed. No.8 was now insisted that the adjoining surveyor visited his property and gave a second opinion that the PWA did not apply.
I immediately wrote to the adjoining surveyor, copying my own asking if was a chartered land surveyor, because he could not determine if the wall was a boundary or party wall. I also pointed out that a schedule of condition would be near impossible because the wall in question is covered completely in ivy (see the other post I have).
He responded stating that the ivy was not part of the party wall act and I should speak to my surveyor. IE, not to bother him.
Last week both surveyors came out to visit No.4 and No.8 jointly. My surveyor also visited upstairs to perform a schedule of condition.
They also visited my property. The adjoining surveyor then told me he thought the extended wall was a party wall, not a boundary wall. Reason as it was a logical extension of the building. From my understanding, that is false.
Subsequent correspondence with the neighbour at no.8 was even if the wall wasn't a party wall, we should treat it as one for the durations of the works, but not update any deeds or titles.
My response is that the wall cannot be transient. If it is a party wall, then he has shared liabilities to upkeep the wall. Not only that, I would have to agree it with my co-freeholder that the wall was shared.
The adjoining surveyor is proposing a fee of circa £2k to agree a PWA for no.8. My annoyance is that the wall is covered completely in ivy so it will be hard to determine what is pre-existing damage and what is introduced via building works. My neighbour is not using the wall at all and I do not believe I am over his boundary.
If there was a risk to his building at all, or I was remotely close to his building I would understand. But the risk is to my wall. I don't want a situation where in 18 months time there was an issue with the now shared wall and the neighbour claimed it wasn't.
Building works are to an outrigger building. Ground floor flat (see extension diagram above). There is a flat above who is the co-freeholder. No issue with them.
I then have 2 neighbours, the one who has the shorter building, let's call him no.8 and the neighbour who is equal length to me, let's call him no.4.
A schedule of condition was offered to all 3 parties. My co freeholder accepted that offer and the works. N.4 appointed an adjoining surveyor. No.8 originally accepted that there was no party wall agreement because of the distance and he did speak to my surveyor.
At some point No.4 spoke to No.8 and the position changed. No.8 was now insisted that the adjoining surveyor visited his property and gave a second opinion that the PWA did not apply.
I immediately wrote to the adjoining surveyor, copying my own asking if was a chartered land surveyor, because he could not determine if the wall was a boundary or party wall. I also pointed out that a schedule of condition would be near impossible because the wall in question is covered completely in ivy (see the other post I have).
He responded stating that the ivy was not part of the party wall act and I should speak to my surveyor. IE, not to bother him.
Last week both surveyors came out to visit No.4 and No.8 jointly. My surveyor also visited upstairs to perform a schedule of condition.
They also visited my property. The adjoining surveyor then told me he thought the extended wall was a party wall, not a boundary wall. Reason as it was a logical extension of the building. From my understanding, that is false.
Subsequent correspondence with the neighbour at no.8 was even if the wall wasn't a party wall, we should treat it as one for the durations of the works, but not update any deeds or titles.
My response is that the wall cannot be transient. If it is a party wall, then he has shared liabilities to upkeep the wall. Not only that, I would have to agree it with my co-freeholder that the wall was shared.
The adjoining surveyor is proposing a fee of circa £2k to agree a PWA for no.8. My annoyance is that the wall is covered completely in ivy so it will be hard to determine what is pre-existing damage and what is introduced via building works. My neighbour is not using the wall at all and I do not believe I am over his boundary.
If there was a risk to his building at all, or I was remotely close to his building I would understand. But the risk is to my wall. I don't want a situation where in 18 months time there was an issue with the now shared wall and the neighbour claimed it wasn't.
@Nomadic78 Your response is still confused and jumbled. The party wall process does not work in the way you have described and you keep contradicting yourself or changing the details.
I am beginning to think that the wall in question could well be a Type A party wall. In all probability if all the properties were built at the same time then the main party walls separating the properties were probably built astride the boundary. As the protruding rear flank wall is built on the same line then the boundary is likely to continue through the centre of the wall. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
I am beginning to think that the wall in question could well be a Type A party wall. In all probability if all the properties were built at the same time then the main party walls separating the properties were probably built astride the boundary. As the protruding rear flank wall is built on the same line then the boundary is likely to continue through the centre of the wall. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Wessex, I cannot clarify much more, if you find it jumbled that is fine. At this point there is no point diving into the past.
The simple question is, is the wall a party wall or not? In your own statement you are saying it is might be a type A party wall. If true, then no issues with updating the relevant paperwork, but there is clear joint responsibility for the wall. The No.8 does not want to update the paperwork. If the wall is disputed, the act cannot apply.
The simple question is, is the wall a party wall or not? In your own statement you are saying it is might be a type A party wall. If true, then no issues with updating the relevant paperwork, but there is clear joint responsibility for the wall. The No.8 does not want to update the paperwork. If the wall is disputed, the act cannot apply.
This is what Blup has said and is my point also. Want an award, update the paperwork.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Similar threads
