Where works carry greater perceived risk—deep excavations, substantial structural alteration, or lengthy programmes—adjoining owners may seek reassurance that the project will not leave them exposed if difficulties arise. The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 provides a mechanism commonly referred to as “security for expenses”. In the hands of reasonable professionals, this is not a hostile manoeuvre. It is a practical safeguard that can reduce anxiety and stabilise a cautious neighbour relationship.
Security for expenses is, in essence, a financial provision intended to ensure that funds are available for certain protective or remedial matters if necessary. It is most commonly discussed when an adjoining owner fears that works could be left incomplete, or that additional measures might be required to secure their property. Whilst not every project warrants security, it is important for building owners to recognise that the request is not necessarily unreasonable. In many cases, it is simply a neighbour seeking to replace fear with a defined assurance.
The challenge is proportionality. A demand for security that is inflated, vague, or framed aggressively can escalate tension and prolong the process. Conversely, a measured security proposal—clearly explained and sensibly sized—can remove a persistent undercurrent of worry. When that worry is removed, consent may become more likely, correspondence becomes calmer, and the overall process often accelerates.
At Simple Survey, we treat security as a commercial and practical question. We consider the nature of the works, the length of the programme, and the realistic concerns that an adjoining owner might have. We also consider what would be reasonable in context, recognising that security should be tied to genuine risk rather than used as leverage.
Homeowners should also understand the programme implications. Security discussions can delay a project if raised late. Money is invariably a sensitive topic, and late-stage negotiation tends to harden positions. Where security is likely to arise, it should be considered early, so it can be addressed calmly as part of the structured process rather than as an emergency conversation.
It is also vital to keep communication professional. Building owners sometimes respond to a security request with indignation, as though they are being accused of bad faith. That reaction can be counterproductive. A more effective approach is to treat the request as part of risk management: clarify what is being sought, assess whether it is reasonable, and respond proportionately. You can maintain your rights and still handle the discussion with restraint.
Another practical point is that security, when agreed, can protect the building owner as well. A neighbour who feels reassured is less likely to obstruct, less likely to insist on unnecessary procedural escalation, and more likely to cooperate with practical matters during the works. In that sense, security can be viewed as an investment in programme stability.
Finally, homeowners should avoid treating security as a universal issue. Many projects do not warrant it. The decision should be driven by the nature of the works and the specific neighbour context, not by hearsay. Professional advice is valuable here because it helps you assess whether a request is truly likely and, if it is, how to handle it without losing momentum.
In summary: security for expenses is best understood as reassurance. When managed with proportionality and professional tone, it can reduce friction and keep a project moving predictably.
Get Cost Saving Pro Advice Now
If you anticipate a cautious neighbour, or you want to understand whether security for expenses may become relevant to your project, contact Simple Survey. Notices start from £25 per adjoining ownership, and agreed surveyor administration is typically £300, depending on complexity and owners.