Overview
The Party Wall etc. Act does not divide projects into “simple work for one surveyor” and “serious work requiring two surveyors”. If a dispute has arisen, the owners can either concur in the appointment of one agreed surveyor or appoint a surveyor each. The scale of the project may affect the amount of information, engineering input or protection that is needed, but it does not by itself answer the question of how many surveyors are required.
For an adjoining owner, that is often the more useful question. You are not choosing between “lightweight protection” and “serious protection”. You are choosing the process by which the statutory dispute will be administered, and the quality of the people involved matters more than the number of people involved.
A good agreed surveyor can be efficient because one person receives the information, considers the issues, communicates with both owners and makes the award. A poor agreed surveyor can be frustrating because both owners are relying on the same person. Likewise, appointing two surveyors does not guarantee a better process: it can work well, but it can also create duplication, delay, correspondence and further cost.
The adjoining owner should therefore look at the evidence already available about the proposed surveyor: the notice package, the guidance supplied, the quality of the drawings, the clarity of the explanations and the way reasonable enquiries are handled.
The type of work is not the test
A basement excavation can be complex. A chimney-breast removal can be relatively straightforward. But neither description tells you whether one surveyor or two surveyors will administer the matter better. The actual questions are whether the proposed surveyor understands the work, recognises the risks, knows what information is needed and is willing to obtain specialist input where necessary.
Complexity can change what the surveyor needs to do. It may require more detailed drawings, structural calculations, temporary works information, sequencing information or engineering advice. Those are questions about the quality and scope of the investigation. They are not, by themselves, reasons why two surveyors must be appointed.
It is therefore sensible to be cautious about blanket statements such as “a basement always needs two surveyors” or “a small extension only needs one”. Those statements focus on the label attached to the project rather than on the competence of the person being asked to administer it.
Start with the notice you received
The first evidence of how a surveyor works is often the notice package itself. Before you search for another surveyor or read dozens of articles online, look carefully at what has already been sent to you.
A carefully prepared notice does not prove that the surveyor will make every decision correctly. It does, however, show whether the person serving it has taken care with the first formal step in the process. If the paperwork is contradictory, incomplete, generic or obviously inaccurate, that is a reason to ask questions before agreeing that the same person should act for both owners.
The notice is particularly important because it shapes the rest of the process. If you do not understand what work is being notified, it becomes much harder to decide whether to consent, dissent, ask for more information or agree to the proposed surveyor.
- Is the notice clear and professionally presented?
- Does it identify the proposed works properly?
- Are the names and property addresses correct?
- Are useful drawings included?
- Do the drawings appear to show all of the work referred to in the notice?
- Have guidance notes been included on the purpose and process?
- Does the paperwork explain your choices rather than simply ask you to sign something?
What guidance came with the notice?
Most adjoining owners do not deal with party-wall notices regularly. Many will never have seen one before. A notice should therefore arrive in a context that allows an ordinary homeowner to understand why it has been served and what they are being asked to decide.
A good notice package should not leave you with a bare statutory form and the expectation that you will search the internet until you understand it. From the material supplied, you should be able to understand the basic purpose of the notice, the work being proposed, the choices open to you and the likely next steps.
The quality of that explanation is a useful indication of how the proposed surveyor communicates. Clear guidance suggests that the surveyor recognises that adjoining owners need information in order to make an informed decision. Poor or one-sided guidance can suggest the opposite.
- why the notice has been served;
- what work is proposed;
- what your choices are;
- what happens if you consent;
- what happens if you dissent;
- what an agreed surveyor does;
- what appointing your own surveyor means; and
- what happens next in each route.
What happens when you ask a question?
The response to a reasonable question can tell you more than a website, a qualification or a polished letterhead. If you are considering agreeing to a single surveyor, make contact before you decide.
Ask them to explain the works. Ask what they intend to do if you dissent. Ask what documents they expect to review. Ask what protections may be considered. Ask what happens if damage is later alleged. You do not need to set traps or ask technical questions merely to test them. Ordinary questions are enough.
You are not looking for a surveyor who automatically agrees with you. Impartiality means they may sometimes tell you that a concern is outside the Act, disproportionate or unsupported. The important question is whether the answer is reasoned, understandable and respectful.
- Do they answer the question you actually asked?
- Do they explain things in ordinary language?
- Do they appear to understand the proposed works?
- Do they distinguish between what the Act covers and what it does not?
- Do they treat your concern seriously?
- Do they answer promptly enough for you to make a decision?
- Or do you receive a dismissive, formulaic or unnecessarily confrontational response?
Is party wall work something they actually do?
Professional letters after a name can be relevant, but they are not a substitute for practical experience of the Party Wall etc. Act. The adjoining owner needs someone who understands the statutory process and regularly administers it.
Party-wall work involves its own procedures, terminology, deadlines, jurisdictional limits and practical problems. A surveyor who is excellent in another property discipline may still undertake party-wall work only occasionally. That does not automatically make them unsuitable, but it is a fair question to ask.
Reasonable questions include how long they have dealt with party-wall matters, whether it forms a significant part of their practice, how many awards they deal with in a typical year and whether they have experience of the type of work proposed next door.
You are not looking for the biggest number. You are trying to establish whether this is a process the surveyor understands through regular practice rather than an occasional sideline.
- How long have you dealt with Party Wall etc. Act matters?
- Is party-wall work a core part of your practice?
- Approximately how many awards do you make each year?
- Have you dealt with works of this type before?
- If engineering advice is needed, how do you deal with that?
A reputation you can check
Reviews are useful because they provide a visible record of how other people experienced the service. They are not proof that every technical decision will be correct, but they are one of the few pieces of information an adjoining owner can check independently before making an appointment.
A substantial history of good reviews suggests that the surveyor has a public reputation to maintain. More useful than the headline star rating is the pattern in the comments: do people repeatedly mention clear explanations, responsiveness, fairness and progress? Or do the same complaints about delay, fees or poor communication appear again and again?
No reviews or very few reviews do not prove that a surveyor is poor. They may have worked for many years without developing an online profile. But in the modern market, an absence of any visible track record removes one source of reassurance, and it is reasonable to compensate by asking more questions.
Look at the quality of the notice documents
At the notice stage, judge the documents that actually exist: the notice, covering letter, drawings and guidance. Do not try to judge the quality of an award that has not yet been prepared.
Good presentation is not the same as good surveying, but it does matter. Party-wall work depends heavily on accurate documents and clear communication. Sloppy documents at the first stage may be an isolated administrative error, or they may indicate how the matter will be handled later. Either way, you are entitled to ask.
By contrast, a coherent pack that tells the same story across the notice, drawings and guidance gives the adjoining owner a better basis on which to make an informed decision.
- Do the documents fit together?
- Are the names and addresses correct?
- Are the works described in terms an ordinary owner can follow?
- Are the drawings legible and identifiable?
- Do the drawings appear to show all the notified work?
- Are your options explained fairly?
- Are there obvious contradictions between the notice, letter and drawings?
- Does the package look considered, or generic and hurried?
Can you work with this person?
An agreed surveyor is not the building owner’s representative. If you agree to one surveyor, that person is being asked to administer the dispute impartially for both owners. You should therefore be able to raise a concern without feeling that you are contacting the other side’s adviser.
You may be dealing with the surveyor before the award, while the work is taking place and potentially afterwards if a further dispute arises. Communication matters. You do not need to agree with every answer, but you should have confidence that the surveyor will listen, consider the point and explain the conclusion.
Also ask who will actually do the work. A well-known senior surveyor may be named in the correspondence, but parts of the process may be delegated. Delegation is not necessarily a problem, but the standards should remain the same and you should know who is responsible for decisions.
- Who will inspect the property?
- Who will prepare the award?
- Who will answer questions during the works?
- Will any part of the role be delegated to junior staff?
- If so, who remains responsible for the statutory decisions?
If the signals are weak
You do not have to accept the building owner’s proposed agreed surveyor. If the notice is poor, the explanations are unclear, enquiries are not answered or you simply do not have sufficient confidence in the person proposed, you can suggest another agreed surveyor or appoint your own surveyor.
That decision does not have to be hostile. It is not a judgement on your neighbour or on the proposed building work. It is a decision about who you are prepared to trust with the statutory dispute.
If the issue is the person rather than the agreed-surveyor route itself, suggesting an alternative agreed surveyor can be a sensible middle course. It preserves the simplicity of one surveyor while addressing the reason you were uncomfortable with the first proposal.
If the signals are good
If the proposed surveyor communicates well, appears experienced, provides a coherent notice package and gives you confidence that concerns will be considered impartially, an agreed surveyor can be an entirely sensible option.
One surveyor can remove duplicated correspondence and repeated site visits, reduce the opportunity for professional disagreement and keep the process focused on the actual issues arising from the work. That can make the process quicker and easier for both owners.
The fact that the building owner proposed the surveyor does not, by itself, make the appointment unsuitable. What matters is whether the surveyor behaves as an impartial statutory surveyor rather than as the building owner’s advocate.