General Guidance regarding Party Wall Procedures - for Building Owners - Party Wall etc. Act 1996

Disclaimer:

Please note that this general guidance only, and should not be relied on for specific matters or points of law.

All costs and fees quoted are approximate and based on current prices based at time of writing.

Raised party wall - London
Photograph by Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin

Following points need to be considered by Building Owners when undertaking building works that come under the jurisdiction of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 (the “Act”). Please note that the list below is not exhaustive, as issues could arise differently on specific cases, and other areas and sections of the Act or case law may become prevalent:

NB: Party wall surveyors are meant to be impartial, non-bias and appointed to resolve disputes for matters under the Act

1.       All building works that come under the “Act”, should allow for in their budgets the costs for party wall negotiations. For general guidance only, allow for the following:

.1         Surveyor to the Building Owner (BOS):

a.   1 to 2 hours work per adjoining owner for service of notices. This would include land registry searches, preparing notices and serving notices.

(eg: a property with five adjoining owners, could have hours serving notices in the range of 5 to 10 hours work).

b.      8 to 10 hours works per adjoining owner for party wall negotiations, preparing Schedule of Condition, the Award and publishing the Award.

(eg: a property with five adjoining owners, could have party wall negotiations in the range of 40 to 50 hours work).

c.    1 to 2 hours works per adjoining owner following publication of Awards for general issues and sign off, assuming NO damage has occurred.

.2         Surveyor to the Adjoining Owner (AOS):

a.      6 to 10 hours works per adjoining owner for party wall negotiations, preparing Schedule of Condition, the Award and publishing the Award.

(nb: an adjoining owners surveyor that deals with more than one adjoining owner, would naturally charge more)

b.    The adjoining surveyor would normally have his costs written into the Award, which would allow for a sign off.

c.    Sometimes, depending on the nature of the works, an interim visit would also be costed into the Awards, in such circumstances allow for a further 1 to 2 hours.

d.    Additional fees and costs are always allowed for in the Award for damage, based on hourly rates.

.3         Hourly rates for party wall surveyors currently vary from: 100 to 150 £/hr generally, although there are some surveyors in London charging upto £275 £/hr and more. The Act states reasonable costs (thus including the surveyors fees), which really depends on what is determined as reasonable. Hence Adjoining Surveyors fees (currently) could range from £600 to £1500 £/hr per adjoining owner. The fees for the Building Owners surveyors fees are agreed by contract, and are based on hourly rates.

.4     Hence, projects that have two Adjoining Owners, one each side (i.e: terraced house) could give rise to the following current party wall costs (fees):

BOS = £ 2250 to £ 3000 + VAT (based on my fees at £125 £/hr +VAT )

AOS = £ 1200 to £ 3000 + VAT (ie: two surveyors)

Please note that projects beside flats would have greater number of adjoining owners and the costs (fees) would reflect this, although my fees are mitigated slightly by duplication of Awards etc, but they normally are higher especially if each adjoining owner decides to use their own surveyor.

2.         Schedule of Conditions (SOC).

.1         Schedule of Conditions are not a requirement or obligation under the Act.

.2        It would be upto the party wall surveyors to determine the dispute and any damage that may result as a result of the undertaking of the works. Hence, it is prima facia evidence that damage has occurred if it can be compared to a SOC that has been undertaken, and normally placed in the Award prior to the works starting.

.3         The surveyors would not normally wish to do a SOC for areas that appear remote from the works, or the works involved are of a minor nature.

.4      Just because the SOC has not recorded an area that was later claimed to be damaged, this does not remove the obligation for putting right that damage by the Building Owner (BO). It is down to the surveyors under the Act to determine whether the damage was as a result of the works, quite often it is assumed that it is, unless some other compelling evidence can be given to the contrary.

.5        If the nature of the works change in any way, then the Building Owner should inform the surveyors, as what was previously not considered within the SOC may now need to be included.

3.         All building works that come under the “Act”, should allow for the possibility of damage.

.1         It is not easy to assess costs prior to the damage occurring, as this will depend on the damage that has resulted from the works.

.2         It is the responsibility of the Building Owner to either pay for, or get the damage put right. i.e: The Building Owner, cannot claim that they are awaiting costs or insurance pay out from the contractor prior to putting the damage right.

.3       It is within the rights of the adjoining owners to ask for money in lieu payments. This is normally written within the Award as a reminder of this right under the Act. It is becoming more frequent that the adjoining owners are preferring to ask for money in lieu, instead of having the contractor who undertook the works and (in their eyes) caused the damage, to undertake the repairs.

.4      Surveyors costs will be charged at an hourly rate, so protracting or delaying the issue of dealing with the damage could only incur additional costs (fees).

.5         Normally, a schedule of damage and making good is undertaken by the surveyors at additional costs (fees).

.6         Normally the adjoining owners get their own prices in for the surveyors to agree. I always want three quotes to be given. I do like the Building Owner to arrange for another independent person to quote. The prices for making good have to be reasonable, and therefore I generally find that the contractor that caused the damage can never really provide a reasonable cost to put it right, after all we are looking at money in lieu, and not for him to put it right.

.7     Normally, it is better to agree amicably the payment in lieu, otherwise another Award will be written to determine this, and upheld in the courts if necessary, and thereby causing additional costs and fees.

4.       It is advisable that the works to be undertaken under the “Act” are clearly defined on the drawings.

.1       Confusing drawings, with discrepancies or which are poorly coordinated will cause a lack of confidence in the works that are to be undertaken. This will cause additional time by the surveyors and it will be reflected in the fees charged.

.2         Also certain types of structural work (i.e: underpinning, piling etc), could result in additional costs (fees) from the adjoining surveyors appointing independent structural engineers to check the proposals. It is the design structural engineer's responsibility to come up with proposals that are best suited for structural work in relation to the Party Wall Act that and would best suit their client.

.3         The Awards need to reflect the actual works to be undertaken. Any changes in the proposed works may require new or additional notices, and/or agreements and/or Awards. Hence, the surveyors should be informed of any intended changes immediately. Again this will be reflected in the costs (fees) of the surveyors.

.4         It is not the job or the responsibility of the surveyors to undertake the design. Their responsibility is to resolve the dispute (or deemed dispute) between the Building Owner and Adjoining Owner (AO), as result of the proposed works shown on the Notices (i.e: with drawings attached), or that has been undertaken in pursuant of the Act (whether a notice has been served or not), in order to determine damage or other matters (eg: security, enclosure costs etc)

5.         Site plans, indicating adjoining buildings / adjoining owners.

.1         It would be very useful if all designers provide a "to scale" drawing indicating the site boundaries, boundary walls, boundary party walls and nearby buildings, including those to the rear and sides, and the exact location of the proposed works related to these other structures and buildings.

.2         It would be very useful if the Building Owner or the design team discover as much out as possible as regards the adjoining properties and owners, as this will save time and costs in the serving of notices.

6.         Special foundations

.1         These are basically reinforced foundations.

.2         It appears to be common practice in basement works, that the structural engineer proposes special foundations.

.3      The Building Owner has no right to place special foundations on the adjoining owners land without written consent to do so by the adjoining owner. If consent is not given then the foundation works need to be undertaken using wider, mass filled foundations without reinforcements.

.4         If special foundations are allowed, and the adjoining owner subsequently decides to undertake their own works to which the special foundations cause additional costs, then the Adjoining Owners can claim for these costs against the Building Owner.

7.         Enclosure costs

.1         If the adjoining owner had already extended the party wall, either raised it or even lowered it (i.e: basement construction), then the building owner shall pay for the privilege of using it (enclosing upon it).

.2         Enclosure costs are based on half of the current price to construct the wall (due proportion).

.3     Building Owners should view this enclosure costs as a benefit, as they have avoided in having to build the wall themselves at full cost. They are only paying for half the costs in doing so.

8.         Third Surveyor (TS)

.1      Either party (BO or AO) or the surveyors appointed can call upon the Third Surveyor to resolve matters that cannot be agreed on.

.2         Approaching the TS is quite often used to determine the fees of the AOS, if they appear to be unreasonable. However, a well-formed time sheet (or identification of his/her hours used), normally shows whether the surveyor is being reasonable in his/her fees. The BOS fees are agreed by contract and are therefore not part of the Award.

.3         BOS or AOS, must get approval from their appointing owners prior to calling on the TS, as there are likely to be high costs in resolving the disputed matters. TS fees are currently in the region of £250 to £300 per hour + VAT.

.4         The TS requires to be paid before he determines the dispute by way of Award.

9.         Awards

.1         Both the BO and AO can appeal any Award made by the surveyors (including the TS) in county court, within 14 days following its publication. Therefore, it is important to understand the Award and its conditions.

.2       The Award and the Act would not allow any deviation from the works shown in drawings within the Award, without prior approval.

.3       Once the 14 days have lapsed, the Award, which is a legal document is conclusive, the conditions of which can be upheld in court.

10.       Security for expenses

.1         Following a recent court case, Kaye v Lawerence (2010), security for expenses are becoming a more common request.

.2         Security is a financial burden placed on the Building Owner, upon serve of notice by the Adjoining Owner.

.3         If the amount of security cannot be agreed then this is a dispute that can be resolved by the surveyors by way of Award. This would incur additional costs (fees) for the surveyors.

.4         Also, with the current economic climate, I imagine security will start to be almost common practice. Adjoining Owners do not want to have the problem of the party wall being exposed and left open, as the contractor or even building owner goes bankrupt without some method of remedying the issue.

11.       Conclusion

I hope the above general points help the Building Owners, in order to identify the areas, especially costs that needs to be considered and built into any building works that are beside and adjoining other properties.

The best way for the Building Owner to look at the Act, is as an enabling Act that gives certain rights that under common law would not be permitted (i.e: trespass). If you can also imagine that it is also meant to be a neighbourly Act that protects and compensates Adjoining Owners' properties from potential and actual damage, without having to take matters to court under a civil action, where matters can get really expensive. ( Recent case law: Jones-Lovegrove v Ruth-Ruth (2011) )

Disclaimer:

Please note that this general guidance only, and should not be relied on for specific matters or points of law.

All costs and fees quoted are approximate and based on current prices based at time of writing.

Links to my websites

http://partywallsurveyors.uk.com/

http://www.abpriba.co.uk/index.html

Almost complete - Extension - Croydon, UK - designed by Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin principal of abp Chartered Architects ( abp Architects ) , Bromley architects. 

Why do many architects dislike the Party Wall etc Act 1996? by Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin of abp Chartered Architects ( abp Architects ), Bromley architects

Exposure of existing foundations, during party wall negotiations
by Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin of  abp Chartered Architects
( abp Architects ) , Bromley architects

Why do many architects dislike the Party Wall etc Act 1996? by Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin of abp Chartered Architects, ( abp Architects ), Bromley architects

The short answer: “money for old rope”

I suppose the short answer is that the Act is perceived generally by architects as an unnecessary piece of legislation that is only there to fill the pockets of surveyors with no real benefit to neither their client nor the neighbour.  The most common phrase used is “money for old rope”.  Architects also consider that some surveyors dealing with the Act, charge fairly large and exorbitant  fees, normally based on an hourly rate and well in excess of what they as architects can charge their own clients. Furthermore, this fee becomes legally tied into an Award which enforces their clients to pay it.

Yes, the perception is all about the money and not really if the services undertaken by the party wall surveyors actually helps the architect’s clients (the building owners) or even protects the neighbours interests (the adjoining owners). 

The poor perception:  “money grabbing” & “cash cows”

Working as both a party wall surveyor and an architect I see both sides of the story.

Some party wall surveyors have given the unfortunate impression of “money grabbing” individuals who are only thinking of their own pockets and who are not interested in resolving a dispute, or following the principles of the Act or even considering the practical purposes of the Act as long as they get paid.  I have also come across  situations where some surveyors will even try to encourage further disputes under the Act in order to use the building owners as a “cash cow” for further fees. 

Such a perception is not good for any of the professionals who deal with matters laid out in the Act whether they are  structural engineers, solicitors, surveyors or architects   because it detracts from the real purposes of the Party Wall etc Act 1996.  The Act is there to help facilitate people to undertake building works that may affect their neighbours. It is therefore there to provide a statutory framework that resolves disputes without the need to take the matters to the Courts. 

Architects and designers already have quite a lot of frustrating legislation, from “unfair” planning decisions to “awkward” building regulation requirements.  Therefore, to have to deal with another piece of legislation that further hampers and quite often protracts a project, is never really going to be welcomed, especially as it appears to be “administered” by yet another professional that has no connection with the local authorities or government departments and who is generally an individual who is not too far removed from their own profession as an architect.

“It is not a good idea” for the agent to work as a party wall surveyor in my opinion., although I am aware there are some party wall surveyors and other construction professionals that still think it is acceptable to provide party wall  services for their clients’ building works in order to save them money (that is the excuse I have been given).  In my opinion, “it is not a good idea”.  I have never provided both the services of an architect and party wall surveyor on the same job.  I believe it is a conflict of interests and such an approach cannot really serve the client.  Furthermore, any professional providing this "double" service could put their client in a precarious position, if matters get complicated and courts become involved.

 As I am not the agent for the persons undertaking the works (building owners) I can be quite open and direct with regards to their obligations and those of the adjoining owners.  It also makes it easier for me to consult with the design team and to deal with any issues that are preventing the resolution of a dispute.  Furthermore, I am sometimes appointed as an agreed surveyor, because most adjoining owners can see that I am independent of the building owners and I am acting totally within the remit of the Act without any self-interests or other motives that could be obstructing my duties under the Act.

Encouraging architects / designers to see the benefits of the Act: “being positive”

In order to encourage architects into seeing the benefits of the Act I normally have to enlighten them on the various aspects of the Act that can actually help with the works and in turn their own clients (the building owners).  There are rights of enclosures (or more precisely making use of works previously undertaken by the adjoining owners), that can save the building owner money on having to do something that has already been done and only paying for half the costs in doing so.  The rights of access are quite often overlooked, and when this is used in a positive way it can actually help both parties in getting a better job, (i.e: a decent brickwork face with proper pointing).

As for my counterpart surveyors, I am sometimes in a situation of having to remind them of their responsibility of their appointment under the Act, in that, it is the duty of the appointed surveyors to resolve the disputes rather than perpetuate them or start new ones.  

Architects appointed as party wall surveyors:  “who understands the Act fairly well”

I am often appointed as the building owners’ surveyor, initially to serve the notices on their behalf and then to resolve the dispute that may follow.  I am sometimes confronted with surveyors who think because I am a chartered member of the Royal Institute of British Architects and it is written as such on my letter headed paper that, firstly, I am the architect working on my own project and secondly, that I do not know a thing about the Act itself. 

On the first of these points I have already explained the reasons above as to why I do not consider it wise or even clever to take on the duties of a party wall surveyor on one’s own architectural jobs.

On the second point, I am often in a situation of trying to demonstrate that I am a professional person “who understands the Act fairly well”.  it does not really matter how long one has been dealing with party wall issues, but on how effective one is, although I have been dealing with matters under Act for over two decades. 

The first give away that my counterpart surveyor has not really got a grip on the Act, is when they refer to their “appointing owners” as “clients”.  This is often a good indication that the surveyor “may” have a vested interest in the outcome of the resolution of the dispute.  How this vested interest manifests itself can be in a number of ways, from the fees claimed to the overall handling of the dispute and trying to get the best “deal” for his/her “clients”.  In such circumstances I am loathed to allow the surveyor to handle matters in my absence, as I would be concerned about his/hers so called impartiality in dealing with the matters.

Adjoining Owner Surveyor is sometimes an:  “ambulance chaser”

I have been in situations where the adjoining owners’ surveyor has been appointed before the service of the notice.  As a result, I am then having to get the surveyor to be properly appointed once the notice is served.  Furthermore I disallow them from charging their time prior to the service of notice, as no dispute under the Act could have been in existence before the issuing of the notices.  These surveyors are normally defined as “ambulance chasers”. They are the types that scour the planning lists and promote themselves as party wall experts to the adjoining owners and inform the adjoining owners that all their fees would be paid by the building owners.  They will often encourage disputes by frightening the adjoining owners, stating that all sorts of calamities are going to befall them as a result of the works happening next door, and they will need their help to protect them.  In such situations it is vital that an agreement on the third surveyor is reached as soon as possible, before anything else happens. Unfortunately, this type of party wall surveyors exist and can bring the Party Wall etc Act into disrepute as well as focus our attention away from the purposes of the Act. 

However, let us look on the bright side, as there are quite a few decent party wall surveyors who understand that they are there to represent both parties and resolve the disputes fairly.  I am always happy to appoint such surveyors for adjoining owners who did not respond to a ten day requests to appoint their own party wall surveyor following the serving of notices.  Furthermore, I am happy for such surveyors to conclude the schedule of conditions, or where necessary the awards on my behalf,  if I am detained or otherwise engaged on other matters.

The Party Wall etc Act 1996:  “has benefits”

In order for the Party Wall etc Act 1996 to work and be promoted as a decent way of dealing with the legal issues surrounding it, those administering it have to behave appropriately and explain it accordingly to all parties, the architects, designers, building owners and adjoining owners.

Architects, designers and their clients need to feel reassured that the Act “has benefits”, even if those benefits are simply a way of recording the state of affairs next door prior to the building works starting and providing a reasonable way of determining if any damage has resulted from the works that have taken place and thereby avoiding the possibility of employing solicitors and incurring court fees, etc.  If we, as reasonable professionals cannot get this right, then unfortunately it will be the solicitors and courts that will take on board these issues instead.  There  are points of law and case laws that happen anyway because of the complexity of some  situations that can arise from the Act, but these should be the rarity rather than the norm.

With regards the adjoining owners, it must be demonstrated to them that the Act allows for certain rights and obligations from the person undertakng the works.  It should be emphasised to them that the Act should not be used as another “stick to hit” the neighbour with because they did not like the idea of works happening next door in the first instance. It is up to the adjoining surveyors to explain this to the adjoining owners and that their remit can only deal with matters under the Act.  The key word here is “impartiality”, and the adjoining surveyors should be willing to show that they are “impartial”. 

Appointed Surveyors have: “a duty of care, to both parties”

In one instance when I was appointed as an adjoining owners surveyor I was getting demands from the building owners surveyor to explain to him what was in dispute and to catalogue it, as he was trying to suggest a dispute could not be legitimate if I could not do this.  I referred him back to the Act and that it was a deemed dispute and we need to resolve this by ensuring the notifiable works are dealt with by acknowledging (determining) them in an Award.  These types of abuses, misrepresentation and misunderstandings of the Act do not help either party and give a bad impression of the Act for everyone.

Party Wall Surveyors need to: “keep it real” and “play ball”

So, how can we as party wall surveyors “keep it real” and ensure that we get a better reputation?  Although I do not believe you can make anybody happy to pay for another piece of legislation that they feel is burdensome and unnecessary, there has to be a way of making building owners aware of the benefits of the Act other than the Act to be used as another stick to hit them with.  It also depends on the way the adjoining owners are advised and approached by their own surveyors.  The adjoining surveyors have a big responsibility in communicating the aspects of the Act that affect their appointing owners and they should certainly not be looking at the building owners as “cash cows”. 

Firstly, the surveyors need to be clear on what they are appointed for.  They are there to resolve a dispute or deemed dispute following a service of a notice for the notifiable works only.  

Secondly, the surveyors need to keep to their remit and not get involved in matters that are outside the Act.  I have on many occasions advised my appointing owners (adjoining or building owners) when certain matters are outside my remit and therefore I cannot be involved.  

Thirdly, the surveyors need to be reasonable on their fees, as they should know how long things normally take and therefore should not overdo it.  They need to remember that they are there to resolve disputes and ensure that the notifiable works are clearly established in the determination and Awarded as such.  It is understood that additional works, recording damage and delays from the design team will cause additional time and thereby should be paid for, but encouraging additional work that is outside the surveyors remit, is clearly not “playing ball”. 

Lastly but not least, surveyors need to explain to their appointing owners their liabilities as and when they become apparent (this is not always clear on first receipt and inspection of the drawings).  They also need to advise them on any opportunities that they may take advantage of, i.e: enclosure opportunities, access to neighbouring land etc. to name just a few. 

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin.

abp Chartered Architects ( abp Architects ) , Bromley architects

  

Background:  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin is an architect and party wall surveyor with over 25 years experience and a member of the Pyramus & Thisbe Club.  He also gives talks to other chartered architects on behalf of the RIBA South East.

Legal Notice:   This is for general discussion and guidance only and should not be relied upon for specific matters or points of law.  

Also see Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin of abp Chartered Architects website:

http://www.abpriba.co.uk/

Also see Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin of abp Party Wall surveyors website:

http://partywallsurveyors.uk.com/

abp Architects ( Bromley architects ) - Practice Profile

Interior of Sports Centre
designed by Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin
of abp Chartered Architects ( abp Architects ) , Bromley architects

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin  is the principal of  abp Chartered Architects ( abp Architects ), Bromley architects.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin works with his wife Maria Humphrey-Gaskin.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin qualified as an architect in 1987.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has a vast experience in the design and construction on various building types.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has worked for notable practices such as RHWL, The Property Services Agency and WS Atkins.

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has run his own architectural business since 1991, and has worked in the educational, commercial and residential sectors.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has experience in theatre projects. ecological and green design projects.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin  is also an experienced party wall surveyor and is a member of  the Pyramus & Thisbe Club.

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin’s other interests and activities include web design, making home movies and is a member of the internet based chess team “The Black Stallion International Chess Team”.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin was also a Croydon school governor for over 12 years and is still involved with independent school appeal panels for the London Borough of Croydon.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has also been an active member of the architectural advisory design panel (TAP), for the London Borough of Bromley planning department for a number of years.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has recently been elected as chairperson of the RIBA Croydon, Bromley & Sutton branch.

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin works closely with his wife Maria Humphrey-Gaskin at abp Chartered Architects ( abp Architects ) as a well organised husband and wife team.  Maria Humphrey-Gaskin is also architecturally trained and apart from taking part in the running of the practice as the Practice Manager, she also deals with the measured survey work, and initial design stages of various projects.   Maria Humphrey-Gaskin (nee Stylianou) also speaks fluent Greek.

ABP Chartered Architects ( abp Architects )  provides a professional service, from inception to completion.  ABP Chartered Architects undertake the designs, planning and building regulation applications, and contract administration for all types of jobs from small domestic works to larger commercial projects.  ABP Chartered Architects ( abp Architects -  Bromley architects ) are quality assured to ISO 9001.

Pool house - Bickley - designed by Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin
of abp Chartered architects, Bromley architects

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin and Maria Humphrey-Gaskin of abp Chartered Architects ( abp Architects - Bromley architects ), works with clients to create good architecture and buildings -- to get it built !!!

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin's next talk on the party wall legislation, is taking place at Woking, on 15th May 2014

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin principal of abp Chartered Architects.

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin is an experienced party wall surveyor and a long time member of the Pyramus & Thisbe Club. 

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has also given a number of talks (CPD events) to other RIBA architects about the Party Wall legislation, with reference to the Party Wall etc Act 1996.

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin's next talk on the party wall legislation, is taking place at Woking, on 15th May 2014.  See the link to the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) website:   Party Walls : Woking

As a matter of interest, if you are building owner as defined under the Party Wall etc Act 1996, please feel free to download Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin's own practical guidance from abp Chartered Architects' party wall website:   Guidance for building owners

abp Architects - Practice Profile

Extension Beckenham, Kent
Design by Maria & Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin
abp Chartered Architects, Bromley architects

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin  is the principal of  abp Chartered Architects. Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin works with his wife Maria Humphrey-Gaskin. Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin qualified as an architect in 1987.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has a vast experience in the design and construction on various building types and has worked for notable practices such as RHWL, The Property Services Agency and WS Atkins. Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has run his own architectural business since 1991, and has worked in the educational, commercial and residential sectors.  He also has experience in theatre projects. ecological and green design projects.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin  is also an experienced party wall surveyor and is a member of  the Pyramus & Thisbe Club. Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin’s other interests and activities include web design, making home movies and is a member of the internet based chess team “The Black Stallion International Chess Team”.  He was also a Croydon school governor for over 12 years and is still involved with independent school appeal panels for the London Borough of Croydon.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has also been an active member of the architectural advisory design panel (TAP), for the London Borough of Bromley planning department for a number of years. Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has recently been elected as chairperson of the RIBA Croydon, Bromley & Sutton branch. Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin works closely with his wife Maria Humphrey-Gaskin as a well organised husband and wife team. Maria Humphrey-Gaskin is also architecturally trained and apart from taking part in the running of the practice as the Practice Manager, she also deals with the measured survey work, and initial design stages of various projects.   Maria Humphrey-Gaskin (nee Stylianou) also speaks fluent Greek. ABP Chartered Architects provides a professional service, from inception to completion.  ABP Chartered Architects undertake the designs, planning and building regulation applications, and contract administration for all types of jobs from small domestic works to larger commercial projects.  ABP Chartered Architects are quality assured to ISO 9001.

abp Architects - Practice Profile

70 bed nursing home - Bickley, Kent
Designed by Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin
of abp Chartered Architects, Bromley architects

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin  is the principal of  abp Chartered Architects. Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin works with his wife Maria Humphrey-Gaskin. Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin qualified as an architect in 1987, and has a vast experience in the design and construction on various building types and has worked for notable practices such as RHWL, The Property Services Agency and WS Atkins.

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has run his own architectural business since 1991.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has worked in the educational, commercial and residential sectors.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin also has experience in theatre projects. ecological and green design projects.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin  is also an experienced party wall surveyor and is a member  of  the Pyramus & Thisbe Club.

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin’s other interests and activities include web design, making home movies and is a member of the internet based chess team “The Black Stallion International Chess Team”.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin was also a Croydon school governor for over 12 years and is still involved with independent school appeal panels for the London Borough of Croydon.  Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has also been an active member of the architectural advisory design panel (TAP), for the London Borough of Bromley planning department for a number of years. Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin has recently been elected as chairperson of the RIBA Croydon, Bromley & Sutton branch.

Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin works closely with his wife Maria Humphrey-Gaskin as a well organised husband and wife team. Maria Humphrey-Gaskin is also architecturally trained and apart from taking part in the running of the practice as the Practice Manager, she also deals with the measured survey work, and initial design stages of various projects.   Maria Humphrey-Gaskin (nee Stylianou) also speaks fluent Greek.

Party Wall Matters – interesting issue – No.3

I recently bumped into an old acquaintance (adjoining owner) that had issues with building works next door to him. My old acquaintance related the following story to me:

1. He was notified of the neighbouring excavation and foundation works, under section 6 of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 (“the Act”). He appointed his own surveyor (adjoining owners’ surveyor), whilst his neighbour retained his own surveyor (building owners’ surveyor).

2. Under the requirements of the “Act”, both surveyors had selected a “Third Surveyor”, who in this instance was a very experienced and notable fellow of the Pyramus & Thisbe Club.

3. The works proceeded under an Award drafted by the two surveyors (adjoining and building owners).

4. However, there was damage to the adjoining owners’ property, as a direct result of the foundation works.

5. The building owners’ surveyor decided that he did not want to be involved in determining the extent of the damage, or even agree a financial settlement. The adjoining owners’ own surveyor stated that he had never been in this situation before, and therefore did not know how to deal with the issues.

My old acquaintance was now in a quandary, and did not know what to do.

It was very simple to deal with, but did require a certain amount of knowledge of the “Act”, which with all due respect these two surveyors obviously lacked.

My first suggestion to him was to get his (adjoining owners) surveyor to deal with the damage under a new Award, and also get his surveyor to appoint a structural engineer to monitor the damage over a period of time. All the (reasonable) costs and fees can been written in the new Award, that can be issued onto the Building Owner, exparte if necessary if the Building Owners own surveyor does not want to deal with the matter.

My second suggestion to him was that if his own (adjoining owners) surveyor found it difficult to deal with, for whatever reason, he can appoint the Third surveyor himself directly, in order to determine the damage. This procedure under the “Act” is rarely used, possibly because it requires the respective owners (building & adjoining) to have a certain understanding of the “Act”

I wished him well with his endeavours, and maybe when he bumps into me again in the future he will tell me of the outcome.

Disclaimer: It is important to remind everyone that the comments I make in this blog are my opinion, and should not be used as a basis of any legal definition or enactment, and the reader is advised to take their own legal advice for matters relating to their own circumstances.

Party Wall Matters – No.2 - Section 6(3)

I recently attended a Pyramus & Thisbe Club lunch, at my branch. A discussion was started about Section 6 (3) of the Party Wall etc Act 1996.

It appears that the club was divided under the opinion that the Building Owner, the person(s) undertaking the works has a legal right to underpin the neighbours’ property in order to facilitate their building works. It appears that some eminent surveyors are in agreement with this.

However, I disagree with this opinion. If you actually read the clause of the Act that this refers to, it appears very clear, that both conditions of “may”, and “and if required by the adjoining owner”, must be happening for any such action to take place. So unless the adjoining owner is in agreement with the underpinning, no such works can take place, or should take place. Hence, it is not even upto the party wall surveyors to take such determinations, and certainly not without discussing it with their respective owners, and possibly involving a structural engineer or two to make sure that it is necessary. However, the final say on the possibility of it happening remains, as it should in my opinion, with the adjoining owner, under the “and if required” statement under the Act.

I have provided the extract from the Act so all can see:

“ Section 6 (3) The building owner may, and if required by the adjoining owner shall, at his own expense underpin or otherwise strengthen or safeguard the foundations of the building or structure of the adjoining owner so far as may be necessary.” Crown Copyright

I am glad I got this off my chest. However, I feel it is important to remind everyone that the comments I make in this blog are my opinion, and should not be used as a basis of any legal definition or enactment, and the reader is advised to take their own legal advice for matters relating to their own circumstances.

Party Wall Matters – the tricky stuff – No.1

It sometimes becomes very difficult to undertake my duties under the Party Wall etc Act 1996, basically because of the misunderstandings of one of the parties, or both parties, as to what my role under the Act actually is.

I currently have a situation, where the Adjoining Owner, is principally wasting my time in getting me to explain every action I take. I wonder why he bothered to appoint me to start with. I am at the point of telling him that he is impeding my duties, and that if he wishes to continue to waste my time I want him to confirm that he will pay my fees in doing so. Hopefully that will stop him from wasting my time any further.

The duties of a party wall surveyor are specifically narrow under the Act. This Adjoining Owner is now claiming that I agreed certain matters during a site visit, under some spurious notion that he recorded all the statements and had a witness to this. Talk about making life difficult. I had to refute his statements, and informed him I only make agreements or statements in writing in order to avoid any misunderstandings. Why is it some individuals (as I have been there before), think that a professional person would make such verbal agreements? I simply do not do that, it’s not part of my codes of conduct to do such things. In this particular case, he was making similar inaccurate assertions about other parties, earlier on, so I assume it has something to do with how he perceives matters.

It’s very simple really, the Act is designed for party wall surveyors to determine matters in an Award, and that this is only way either of the Owners (Building or Adjoining), can argue the content of what the surveyors determine. Thereby there are no verbal agreements recognised under the Act.

Next time... after this rant... I will explain a little more about the Party Wall procedures, and what it is all about.