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.