Overview
If each owner appoints a surveyor, those two surveyors select a third surveyor. The owners do not choose that third surveyor themselves. In practice, most owners would not know one possible third surveyor from another and will not know in advance what approach the selected person might take.
You may therefore know the surveyor you have appointed, but you will not know in advance who the two surveyors will select as third surveyor, whether that person will ever become involved, what view they will take of a disputed issue or how they will deal with the costs of a referral.
That uncertainty does not mean the third-surveyor mechanism is bad. It exists to provide a route where the two appointed surveyors cannot resolve an issue or where a matter is referred to the third surveyor. The point is simply that its existence should not be marketed to an adjoining owner as guaranteed extra protection.
Two surveyors can provide a useful structure where each owner wants a separate appointment. But they also create another professional relationship and the possibility of disagreement between surveyors. If that disagreement becomes a third-surveyor referral, there is another stage to the process and further professional time is incurred.
- Who will the two surveyors select?
- Will the third surveyor ever need to become involved?
- What will their approach be to the particular issue?
- Will they agree with your surveyor, the other surveyor, neither, or only partly with each?
- How will the costs of the referral ultimately be allocated?
A third-surveyor referral is not free
A referral involves additional professional work. The two appointed surveyors may need to make submissions, respond to the other side and deal with questions raised by the third surveyor. The third surveyor must then consider the issue and make a determination.
The surveyors do not personally fund that process. The resulting costs will ultimately be allocated between one or both owners in accordance with the determination made. That means a dispute between surveyors can still have a financial consequence for the parties.
Fee disputes are among the matters that can reach a third surveyor in practice. An adjoining owner should therefore understand that appointing a separate surveyor does not necessarily insulate them from all cost risk. If the surveyors later disagree about fees or another issue, somebody still has to pay for the additional work involved in resolving it.
This is why the better question is not “Do two surveyors give me an extra layer of protection?” but “Will appointing a second surveyor improve the way this particular dispute is handled enough to justify the additional process and potential cost?”