Issue with neighbour over 'party wall'

[Why-me]

Hi,

Help please. I am planning to build a first floor extension on top of existing garage, planning permission has been obtained. Currently the garage is linked as part of our house. The external wall which is neighbouring the boundary line sits on our side, anyone can see this. The garage wall has a cavity. It was built before us and neighbours arrived, probably in 1970s when house was built.

I served a party wall notice to inform them of the works as builder will have to do trial holes to determine the existing foundations if any. If foundations needed then excavation needs to take place for either underpinning or knock down and start again. Neighbours then said they want to appoint a chartered surveyor. After popping round to them I get the impression they think the wall is theirs (they are detached bungalow). They think the chartered surveyor will state which side the wall sits on and who's it is. But of course he cannot do that, not his job to determine boundary lines.

So to cut it short I don't want to pay in excess of 1300 for them to still be unhappy and unsatisfied on the wall/boundary.

I'm stumped as to what I can do.

Attached a pic of my architect plans when he came for survey, clearly shows boundary line and that garage wall sits on our side.

Please help.

Thanks

 

[sxturbo]

Their house isn't attached to yours is it?

 

[jeds]

You need to tread carefully. Party wall surveyors can only operate under the act, they have no legal basis outside of it. So, you have served a PW notice yet you think the wall is not a party wall. If correct, the surveyors should really reject the notice and that should be an end to it. You would then have nowhere to go.

If the surveyors, and the neighbour, think the wall is a party wall, you'd be better off allowing them to think that and continue. That way they will issue an award allowing you access for investigations and for you to build your extension. Without it you would have no rights whatsoever and may not be able to do anything.

 

[Why-me]

Their house isn't attached to yours is it?

Correct, their's is a detached bungalow and mine is semi detached with another neighbour. There is a clear gap between our garages.

 

[Why-me]

You need to tread carefully. Party wall surveyors can only operate under the act, they have no legal basis outside of it. So, you have served a PW notice yet you think the wall is not a party wall. If correct, the surveyors should really reject the notice and that should be an end to it. You would then have nowhere to go.

If the surveyors, and the neighbour, think the wall is a party wall, you'd be better off allowing them to think that and continue. That way they will issue an award allowing you access for investigations and for you to build your extension. Without it you would have no rights whatsoever and may not be able to do anything.

Attached is basically what the agreed surveyor said, they say its redundant, but still want to move forward? Is it not possible that I pay for a site visit and they can determine that themselves and then let the neighbour know, thus putting an end to this matter?

 

[Why-me]

You need to tread carefully. Party wall surveyors can only operate under the act, they have no legal basis outside of it. So, you have served a PW notice yet you think the wall is not a party wall. If correct, the surveyors should really reject the notice and that should be an end to it. You would then have nowhere to go.

If the surveyors, and the neighbour, think the wall is a party wall, you'd be better off allowing them to think that and continue. That way they will issue an award allowing you access for investigations and for you to build your extension. Without it you would have no rights whatsoever and may not be able to do anything.

If the latter wouldn't this just cement the 'fact' that the wall is a party wall when of course it isn't?

 

[jeds]

Well, yes, that confirms exactly what I said. Quite often a wall is dealt with as if it is a party wall when actually it may not be. It just makes it simpler, from a procedural point of view. But, the flip side is that the procedure allows your neighbour to appoint a surveyor, which they obviously want to do. What I am saying is you may be better off swallowing that and following that route and let the surveyors do their work. It will cost you but at least you will get your extension done. If you can agree something with the neighbour that's fine as well, but that doesn't sound likely from what you've said.

 

[^woody^]

Yes as jeds says if the wall is not a PW then the Act can't apply, and the PW surveyors should have realised that right at the beginning.

The PWA is a badly worded and applied Act and there is no process for un-instructing surveyors other than their death IIRC - but that's a bit drastic, nor is there a process for Awards or work or suchlike pursuant to the Act being nullified unless via the Courts.

Even if you have paid for services of a PW surveyor and found them to have proceeded when they should not have, costs will be due and if disputed would have to be decided at Court.

As there is no legal penalty for not serving notice under Act, the best advice is often to only use it if it is advantageous to do so - eg you need access or specific things that you would get via an award. And I suppose that would also apply if the Act did not actually apply but it got you those advantages.

But be careful that you do not create or imply the wall is now a PW to your disadvantage, or even shift the boundary.

 

[wessex101]

I think the problem here is that the OP served notice when he didn't need to. The wall in question clearly isn't a party wall so I can only assume that the notice was served because of the excavation for the trial holes to investigate the existing foundation? Now that the OP has opened the can of worms and appointed the party wall surveyor it is inevitable that costs will start to escalate.

Depending on the age of the adjoining property and the age of the OP's property (post 1976?) then the existing foundations are probably suitable for the first floor extension or will not be deeper than the neighbours foundations and the Party wall Act will not apply. The OP's best option is to show that the proposed work is not subject to the Party Wall Act bringing the process to a halt and pay the surveyor for the work he has done so far.

 

[Mister Banks]

If their bungalow is detached from yours how can you have a party wall?

 

[jeds]

If their bungalow is detached from yours how can you have a party wall?

Party walls don't just separate buildings. Any wall on the boundary could be a party wall, including a boundary wall.

 

[Why-me]

I've attached some pictures of the wall in question. This was when we removed the garage roof. We discovered it was indeed a cavity wall. They were using the outer skin to rest corrugated plastic sheeting to keep rain out. The elevation, slope, bricks used (same as our house), position indicate that it's within our boundary. Its a straight wall. There is a gap between their garage at the front and ours, covered by ivy.

 

[sxturbo]

Well it's clearly obvious it's not their wall.

I presume they are worried they will have to remove the 'shack' they've erected against your wall.

 

[Why-me]

I've let that pass. I've attached some updated pictures from the front. You can see the gap between the garages and then the boundary wall as well for the driveway. They've bricked up the gap from their side and then erected the corrugated plastic sheeting, so turned it in to a lean to area, hence why they think its their wall.

I also spoke to the agreed surveyor and said that their main gripe is with the wall ownership, so I proposed if he would come down and give his impression on whether or not it is a party wall and relay this to the neighbours. They don't want to hear it from me but from an 'authority'. I'll pay for the site visit but if they still object what can they do exactly?

 

[cdbe]

That looks strange to me, if it was built with a cavity wall it wouldn't need piers, almost as if the outer skin has been added at a later date. What was the detail of the front and back walls?
This business here is quite interesting: