Even with a clear Act and good intentions, party wall matters can still skid into dispute—often between the surveyors themselves. When that happens, programmes slip, fees swell, and neighbour relations fray. Here are the five flashpoints we see most—plus calm, practical ways to keep momentum without burning cash.
1) Fee Reasonableness (Section 10(13))
The dispute: One surveyor presents an hourly bill the other considers excessive—either because the hourly rate is high, the time claimed feels disproportionate, or tasks drift beyond the statutory remit.
How to defuse it:
- Anchor discussion to what a competent surveyor would reasonably do for the specific scheme.
- Separate rate from time taken and challenge only what’s clearly outside industry norms.
- If agreement still proves elusive, narrow the issue and refer just the fee point to the third surveyor.
Why it matters: Fee fights are the #1 cause of late awards and souring relations. Keep them tight and evidence-led.
2) Scope Creep in Awards
The dispute: Draft awards balloon with clauses that don’t relate to the notified works or drift into planning/building control territory. The counterpart surveyor resists what they see as overreach.
How to defuse it:
- Test every clause against the Act’s “arising out of or incidental to the dispute” standard.
- Prefer concise, enforceable wording over templates stuffed with catch-all provisions.
- Where genuine risk exists (access, method detail, temporary protections), tie conditions to clear necessity and proportionality.
Why it matters: Overlong, unfocused awards invite objections and delay. Precision wins.
3) Access: Time & Manner (Section 8)
The dispute: One side proposes extended access windows, large scaffold footprints or welfare on neighbouring land. The other argues it’s not necessary or unduly inconvenient.
How to defuse it:
- Start with the necessity test: can the task be reasonably done from the building owner’s land?
- Offer narrow windows, modest footprints, and reinstatement commitments.
- Put forward a simple plan (locations, routes, housekeeping) so the conditions can be agreed quickly.
Why it matters: Access rows are predictable and solvable—if you show necessity and minimise inconvenience.
4) Adjacent Excavation Evidence (Section 6)
The dispute: Arguments over foundation depth assumptions, whether the 3 m/6 m rules bite, or if piles/retaining elements trigger the deeper-notice regime.
How to defuse it:
- Share clear plan/section drawings showing positions and proposed founding levels.
- If the neighbour’s foundation depth is uncertain, agree sensible, conservative assumptions based on age/type of building and local norms.
- Record the threshold test in the award so the basis is transparent.
Why it matters: Ambiguity here breeds appeal risk. Clarity on distances and depths keeps the project lawful and challenge-proof.
5) When to Escalate to the Third Surveyor
The dispute: Surveyors get locked into a loop, and no one wants to pull the third-surveyor lever for fear of cost or face.
How to defuse it:
- Identify one crisp question for referral (e.g., “Is X clause within jurisdiction?” “Is £Y a reasonable fee for Z?”).
- Exchange short submissions; avoid sprawling bundles.
- Agree who pays if the decision goes one way or the other—expect costs to follow the decision.
Why it matters: Surgical referrals save weeks. Blunt ones expand the fight and the bill.
FAQs
Do surveyors have to be “impartial” even if appointed by one owner?
Yes. Once appointed under the Act, each surveyor must act independently to resolve the dispute in line with statute—not simply follow instructions.
Can surveyors insist on processes outside the Act (e.g., planning-style conditions)?
They shouldn’t. Award clauses must be necessary and incidental to the party wall dispute. Anything else risks challenge or delay.
What happens if the two surveyors can’t agree on a third surveyor?
The Act provides a fallback via the appointing officer (typically the local authority). In practice, most pairs agree a name early to avoid delay.
Can an owner contact the third surveyor directly?
They can, but best practice is to route via appointed surveyors. Owners sometimes make direct referrals only on narrow points not yet settled in an award.
Is there a deadline to get an award agreed?
There’s no fixed statutory deadline, but unnecessary delay can be challenged. Keeping issues narrow and necessary is the best accelerator.
Transparent, fixed pricing
- Party Wall Notice service: £25 per adjoining ownership (multi-notice bundles discounted).
- Act administration as Agreed Surveyor (single surveyor): typically £300 fixed-fee, depending on complexity and number of notices/owners.
- Two-surveyor route (we act for the building owner): fixed-fee proposals from £325 for our side. (The neighbour’s surveyor often bills hourly; we work to keep those costs reasonable and contained.)
- Complex works (deep excavations, multi-owner blocks): we’ll still offer the fixed pricing above.
- No surprises, no creeping extras. You’ll know the number before we start.
The Simple Survey approach to surveyor disputes
- Proportionate awards: We keep conditions laser-focused on the notified works.
- Evidence over opinion: Clear distances, depths, and necessity tests—reducing wriggle room.
- Tight referrals: If escalation is needed, we craft one precise question to minimise time and cost.
- Momentum, not ping-pong: We set deadlines, offer pragmatic compromises, and protect the programme.
Cut the friction. Keep the build moving.
If your matter is stalling on fees, access, scope, excavation thresholds, or third-surveyor timing, we can reset it—fast, fair, and compliant—at the lowest like-for-like cost in England & Wales.
Email: team@simplesurvey.co.uk
Simple Survey — clear awards, calm escalations, lowest-cost Party Wall support that keeps your project on track.