Security for Expenses is one of the few party wall topics that reliably creates heat. Building owners hear “security” and assume they are being ransomed. Adjoining owners hear “security” and assume it is common sense. Both instincts can be correct—depending on the facts.
At Simple Survey, we treat Security for Expenses as a tool. Like any tool, it is useful when applied to the right job and damaging when misused.
When Security for Expenses is genuinely reasonable
Security tends to be reasonable when there is credible, project-specific risk that the adjoining owner could be left financially exposed. Typical indicators include:
- high-value or complex works with meaningful interruption risk,
- legitimate concerns about funding stability,
- credible risk of non-completion or prolonged pause,
- a situation where the adjoining owner could face costs if works stall.
The key point is credible risk, not vague anxiety.
When it becomes opportunistic
Security becomes leverage when:
- the amount is inflated without reasoning,
- it is used to extract unrelated concessions,
- it is demanded as a default regardless of project scale.
This behaviour does not “protect” anyone. It prolongs disputes, increases professional time, and makes the entire file more expensive.
The proportionality test we apply
We keep it simple. A security proposal should answer:
- What risk is being secured?
- How was the amount calculated?
- How will it be held?
- When and how is it released?
If any one of those points is vague, the proposal is not yet fit for purpose.
How building owners should respond to a demand
The cost-saving response is not outrage; it is structure. Ask, in writing:
- “Please specify what the security is intended to cover.”
- “Please provide a breakdown showing how the figure was calculated.”
- “Please set out the release mechanism and trigger points.”
This forces the conversation into facts. Facts reduce conflict.
How adjoining owners should frame a request
If you are an adjoining owner requesting security, the best way to be taken seriously is to be specific:
- explain the risk you fear,
- propose an amount linked to that risk,
- set out a sensible release mechanism.
If your request reads like a bargaining chip, it will be treated as one.
Why Security disputes are often really “trust disputes”
The thought-provoking point: many security arguments are actually arguments about trust. Where a building owner appears disorganised—late notices, shifting scope, rushed communication—neighbours become risk-sensitive. Security is then requested as compensation for uncertainty.
The cheapest way to avoid Security disputes is to be organised early: clear scope, calm timing, and professional communication.
Fact Busting FAQs
Is Security for Expenses always required?
No. It is situation-dependent and should be justified by the nature of the works and credible risk.
Is security a payment to the neighbour?
In proper practice it should be a safeguard held with clear conditions, not a profit-making payment.
How can I challenge an excessive security figure?
Ask for a written breakdown, the risk basis, and clear release conditions. Excessive figures usually collapse under scrutiny.
Get Cost Saving Pro Advice Now
If Security for Expenses is being raised and you want a proportionate route that avoids escalation, contact Simple Survey. Notices start from £25 per adjoining ownership, with agreed surveyor administration typically £300, depending on complexity and owners.