The failure of the agreed surveyor role : Section 10(1)(a) of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996

Abstract

This paper discusses how and why the agreed surveyor role, Section 10(1)(a) of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, has failed. The Act has its flaws but is perfectly fine; it is those who administer it who contribute to the failure of this unique and impartial role. Those who administer the Act stand to benefit financially if there are more appointments. For the collective party wall community, it is far more lucrative if disputes are resolved by two surveyors, as opposed to one ‘agreed’ surveyor. There is the false perception that having a dispute resolved by two surveyors is more sensible than relying on just one; however, of 66 party wall appeals from 2002, not one of them related to an agreed surveyor award. Of course, there may be times when a dispute is best resolved by party-appointed surveyors, but that must be after the agreed surveyor route is considered and found to be inappropriate. Too often, this consideration is overlooked, and disputes are needlessly resolved by party-appointed surveyors, ensuring the building owner pays more. There are many simple steps that can be taken by surveyors administering the Act, from serving more informative notice packages to banning pre-dispute appointment letters. The problem with any recommendation is that a surveyor may understandably be reluctant to bring about changes that can adversely affect their profitability. It is the fault of party wall surveyors as guardians of the Party Wall Act that the role of the agreed surveyor has been an abject failure. This paper will explain why they are at fault, why they are loath to change the status quo, and lastly, for the ethical surveyors out there, how they can put the special role of ‘agreed surveyor’ on the pedestal it deserves. This article is also included in The Business & Management Collection which can be accessed at https://hstalks.com/business/.