The Building Engineer - February 2021

INTELLIGENCE

FEBRUARY 2021

A

BUILDING ENGINEER

30

s a specialism, party wall surveying is disconnected from planning approvals, building control, valuations or other forms of surveying work.

But in this separate eco-system, governed by the Party Wall Act 1996, qualified professionals upholding high ethical standards can find themselves working alongside peers who take advantage of its insularity to relax standards. Fees often outstrip those in surveying’s mainstream, creating a strong profit incentive, but the Act’s lack of definition of what constitutes a surveyor allows the unqualified and uninsured to practise. At times, the outcomes from poor practice can be financially disastrous for clients, and have been the basis of serious reputational damage for the wider industry. For David Taylor PPCABE FCABE, a Chartered Architectural Technologist and Chartered Building Engineer at David Taylor Associates and past President of CABE, “the party wall fraternity is riddled with inconsistencies and unethical behaviour”.

Surveyor Oliver Wright MCABE, a member of CABE’s expert panel, who runs London-based Wright Surveying, says the sector has become increasingly like the “Wild West” and that unethical practice has been an “industry-wide problem for as long as I can remember”. So how did the well-intentioned act open the door for bad practice?

Intention and reality The Party Wall Act 1996, originally steered through Parliament by CABE’s current patron, Lord Lytton, is agreed to be a useful piece of legislation: it protects the rights of both building owners and adjoining neighbours when a construction project is planned. The parties can appoint separate surveyors, who must agree a party wall “award”, a document detailing the condition of the adjoining property and designed to minimise any detriment to it as a result of the works. The Act includes a system of statutory notices that must be served within specific timescales and provides a mechanism for appointing a third surveyor to arbitrate if the first two do not agree.

However, by failing to set minimum professional qualifications or standards, the Act has lowered entry barriers to the point where someone with no background in construction can call themselves a Party Wall Surveyor and practise alongside chartered CABE or RICS members.

As Wright explains: “The general point of the Act is to allow people to do building work close to neighbouring buildings, while keeping claims out of the courts. To do this, the dispute resolution mechanism is put into private hands; however, that’s a problem if the people handling the disputes aren’t the right people.” “[The Act] fails to determine minimum standards and competence, so it opens the door to unethical and unqualified individuals,” adds Taylor. “There are also professional surveyors out there who fail to follow their institutes’ codes of conduct,” he warns, mentioning failures to be upfront with clients about costs and fees.

All surveying costs on both sides are typically borne by the building owner undertaking the works, but, as Wright explains, that tilts the playing field in favour of the adjoining owner’s appointed surveyor. The need to complete the building works quickly can leave the building owner with little choice other than to absorb costs.

“The building owner is in a precarious situation; unscrupulous surveyors know they have the whip hand,” he says, reporting that fees in London can reach £200 or even £400 an hour compared with £100 or £120 for other high-level surveying work.

In addition, the Act stipulates that an adjoining owner’s surveyor cannot be removed until the works are complete, even if the appointing client realises they are

The great divide

performing poorly or suspects that they are motivated by self-interest. “Once you’re in, you’re in, and able to rack up extensive fees – fees can easily top £10,000 for a simple domestic loft conversion if the costs are not properly managed.” These matters can be made worse because a Party Wall Award (including the fees charged for its execution or amendment) cannot be challenged in any court, putting party wall surveyors in a position of almost unique advantage.

It is entirely possible to carry out party wall functions in accordance with the Act in a way that is both ethical and professional, so why are there cases where this doesn’t happen?

Checks and balances Part of the problem appears to be that the Act’s 21 clauses are not supported by guidance spelling out best practice, and there is no legislative mechanism to sanction surveyors who fall short of professional standards. While the Act implies that surveyors are part of a recognised professional body whose disciplinary procedures apply, that leaves anyone outside a professional body wholly unregulated.

“If you’re a member of a professional body, the threat of expulsion or disciplinary action is a good way of keeping people in check. But if you are not a member of a professional body, you have nothing to fear except litigation,” says Wright.

CABE members are expected to maintain the professional standards set out in its Code of Conduct, which includes demonstrating openness, honesty, integrity, fairness and impartiality, as

Has party wall surveying been lost to unethical practice, with little distinction between qualified and unqualified professionals?

30-31 PartyWall_BE FEB 2021.indd 30

19/01/2021 14:16