The language of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 can sound more confrontational than the reality. One of the most misunderstood terms is “dispute”. In everyday conversation, a dispute implies an argument. Under the Act, it can simply mean that written consent has not been provided within the relevant timeframe, or that an adjoining owner has dissented. In other words, a “dispute” often reflects uncertainty, caution, or non-response—not hostility.
This distinction matters because it changes how you should behave. If you interpret a lack of consent as a personal rejection, you are likely to escalate tone, increase delays, and drive costs upward. If you interpret it as a procedural trigger, you can move forward in an orderly manner under the Act’s structured mechanism.
That structured mechanism is Section 10. Section 10 provides the route by which surveyors are appointed to determine the terms under which the notifiable works may proceed. In broad terms, the owners may either agree to appoint a single agreed surveyor, or each appoint their own surveyor. Where two surveyors are appointed, they will also select a third surveyor as a statutory safeguard. This is not legal theatre; it is governance. It creates a professional framework where decisions can be made without endless informal negotiation.
The chief purpose of Section 10 is to replace ambiguity with a defined outcome. Once surveyors are properly appointed, the process becomes less about “persuading” a neighbour and more about progressing through the Act’s steps. This is often a relief to homeowners who have been stuck in limbo—particularly when an adjoining owner is slow to respond or reluctant to sign anything.
However, Section 10 does not remove the need for professionalism. Delays can still occur if parties approach appointments casually or attempt to relitigate the project informally instead of progressing through the mechanism. The fastest outcomes occur when the parties accept that the procedure exists for a reason and allow it to do its job.
At Simple Survey, our role in this stage is to maintain momentum without inflaming matters. We keep communications measured. We clarify next steps. We ensure appointment pathways are followed correctly. Where an agreed surveyor route is realistic, it can reduce complexity and cost. Where it is not realistic, we do not waste time insisting upon it; we move forward under the two-surveyor pathway calmly and professionally.
A key point for homeowners: if a neighbour is anxious, trying to force consent often backfires. A neighbour who feels pressured is more likely to appoint their own surveyor immediately, which can increase overall cost and complexity. A neighbour who feels respected is more likely to accept a proportionate, structured route. The Act is designed to accommodate both positions; your job is to remain calm and procedural.
Programme planning remains essential. If you are at the point of dissent or non-response, you should assume that the statutory process will take some time. That time is not wasted; it is the process of establishing a lawful basis for proceeding. The mistake is leaving the process too late and then blaming the Act for delays that were, in reality, caused by programme decisions.
In short: a deemed dispute is not a catastrophe. It is simply the Act moving into its formal mechanism. When handled well, it provides certainty, reduces emotional friction, and allows the project to proceed under defined terms.
Get Cost Saving Pro Advice Now
If you have not received written consent, or you anticipate a cautious neighbour, contact Simple Survey. We will advise the most proportionate route and keep the process cost-effective, with notices from £25 per adjoining ownership and agreed surveyor administration typically £300, depending on complexity and owners.