Party wall notice

[coraliem]

Hi,

How much details do I need to put in the party wall notice for my neighbours?

We are doing a loft conversion with a rear dormer. I do not have the floorplans yet but I want to make sure I give 2 months notice.

Do I need to write more than 'a loft conversion with a rear dormer'? Do I need to supply floorplans?

Cheers
Coralie

 

[chessspy]

Hi, coraliem,
There are sure to be regs for that, and to a certain extent it depends where you are in Lodon.
I used to work in Chelsea a lot and they were s*it hot on all that, we often had 5 different involved inspectors,
DS. Au sous sol, 2x party wall solicitors, and listed front of building.
which was ok as long as they all agreed with each other....

 

[Shytalkz]

You need details of what is going into the wall and where to go along with the notice, so you'll need plans to accompany it.

 

[^woody^]

The requirement to serve plans/detail/sections will depend on what section of the Act you are serving notice.

For example you are required to include plans if serving notice under section 6 (foundations/excavations) but not under section 3 (structures) unless foundations are being laid as part of the work

 

[Shytalkz]

Woodsy me ol' mate: without plans, how would any pws have the slightest idea of what was proposed in the way of taking support from the pw; ergo, how would they make an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal and the need or otherwise to strengthen the foundations of said wall? If acting for the AO, would you give the ok to a notice that merely said something along the lines that we intend to give support to three or four beams on the party wall and nothing visual to explain?

By the time you get to the need to serve a PWeA notice, there will be drawings available, thus it makes sense to include them (or even a pared-down version purely to accompany the paperwork) - not that I think you're 100% right in your comments about no need, but I can't be ferked to get my P&T bible out .

Fwiw I personally think the whole Act is a crock of cráp and a further unnecessary additional cost to projects, the more so when you end up with an AOS who hasn't got the slightest clue about structures; for sure there are the occasional times when it is handy, but it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut in the majority of cases. Plus, it's entirely toothless, in that it contains no remedy for non-compliance, short of wandering off to court to try and get an injunction. Dreamt up by surveyors wanting to increase their turnover .

 

[Joe Malone]

Woody, Shy, technically you're both right on this one. The OP needs to serve a Party structure notice under section 3 and as they rightly say this must be served 2 months prior to work commencing. There isn't actually a specific requirement to include plans plans under this section unless the proposed works involve special foundations (the authors of the act were obsessed with special foundations for some reason?)
However despite the wording of the act the adjoining owner must be able to assess the impact of works on his property and glean sufficient detail from the notice to enable the works to be fully understood. In this case I'd say it was absolutely right to include plans despite the lack of specific instruction in the Party wall act.
Notice should include:
Name and address of the owner/joint owners.
It should be signed and dated.
Date when works are to commence.
Nature and particulars of the work (including drawings/plans)

 

[Shytalkz]

Are there any impending plans to revamp it do you know, now that it's been hanging around for 10 years or so?

 

[Joe Malone]

Not that I know of, I know you're not a fan Shy, but it's current format has evolved over hundreds of years and personally I think we're better off with it than without. It may be amended slightly from time to time but much of this will be down to the affect of new case law. The RICS guidance document simplifies it enormously and provides you with all the standard letters and notices that you might need.

 

[Shytalkz]

I could live with it (slightly) more if the emphasis - as in its original London guise - was that a lack of response to the notice was treated as a tacit approval, rather than a dissent. That turnabout could only have been brought about as a means for additional professional fee gathering to take place.

As it stands, far too many AOs get to think that they can use the Act as a blunt instrument to block an owner's intentions, for whatever reason - obviously the Act does not exist for that purpose, but it still inevitably results in the BO getting stiffed for additional, unnecessary costs. Without some reasonable reason for resisting the works, the AO should get to cough for their fees at least. I know that there are provisions within the Award regarding apportionment of costs, but it's fair to say that very rarely do they get aimed at the AO.

The 45° application to piles within 3-6m makes absolutely no sense either.

 

[Joe Malone]

I certainly take your point regarding abuse of the system; party wall surveyors are not meant to act solely for their own client. Unfortunately many clients just expect their surveyor to do what they tell them to do. We exist to make sure the act is complied with in respect of both parties, whether appointed by the building owner or the adjoining owner. Many clients don't like being told this and some surveyors are scared of not getting repeat fee's.

 

[Shytalkz]

There shouldn't be any problem with telling the AOs how it is; indeed, if it's made a clear part of terms of appointment, there's no misunderstanding. First thing I tell them; they no likee, I walk and say get someone else to do your bidding.

Tbh, if the clients are such numpties as to seek to use the Act in that way after having it explained to them and vent their spleens against the PWS when prevented from so doing, then they wouldn't really be the kind of clients from whom I would want repeat fees!

Any AO who acts outside the remit of the PWeA stands a chance of being reported to his professional institution as well, of course. Just had one like that: son of the AO, who happened to be a chartered surveyor, tried to browbeat the BO into submission. He soon got fúcked off at the high port with said threat of being reported