Section 10 is the engine room of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. It is where the Act moves from “notice and consent” into a structured mechanism that produces a binding outcome when agreement is not available. The crucial mental shift is this: Section 10 is not a sign that the project has “gone wrong”. It is the Act doing its job—preventing deadlock and replacing uncertainty with process.
Section 10 begins with a premise: where a dispute arises or is deemed to have arisen between a building owner and an adjoining owner in respect of works to which the Act relates, the parties must appoint surveyor(s) in one of two ways. Either both concur in appointing one agreed surveyor, or each appoints their own surveyor and those two select a third surveyor. That structure matters because it means the process can proceed without requiring the owners to become amateur negotiators.
“Deemed dispute” is where many homeowners get caught. People assume that if the neighbour does not reply, that means “fine, crack on.” In practice, silence does not provide a safe basis to proceed. The disciplined route is to treat lack of written consent as a trigger to move into the Section 10 framework so the project has a proper statutory footing.
Section 10 then contains the practical machinery that stops non-response from becoming a veto. If one party refuses to appoint a surveyor, or neglects to do so after being requested, the other party may be entitled to appoint a surveyor on their behalf under the Act’s procedure. The point is not to punish silence. The point is to ensure the process cannot be stalled indefinitely by inaction.
From Simple Survey’s perspective, the most important feature of Section 10 is that it demands professional restraint. Once surveyors are appointed, correspondence should become procedural and focused. Projects get expensive when owners continue informal arguments in parallel—debating motives, trading accusations, and trying to “win” rather than progress. That behaviour does not speed anything up; it increases professional time because it creates additional issues to manage.
The “agreed surveyor” route can be the most efficient where the relationship is workable. One surveyor acts impartially for both owners, and the matter can often be concluded with fewer letters and fewer duplicated tasks. Where the relationship is strained, separate surveyors may be more suitable, but the objective remains the same: to reach a defined outcome without escalation.
It is also worth understanding the third surveyor’s function in the two-surveyor route. The third surveyor is not automatically involved. They are a statutory safeguard selected at the outset so that if the two surveyors cannot agree, a mechanism exists to resolve the impasse. This is one of the Act’s quiet strengths: it builds in an answer to deadlock.
In short, Section 10 is designed to keep matters moving. The cost-effective outcome is usually the calmest one: proper appointments, measured correspondence, and a clear focus on reaching a workable Award.
Get Cost Saving Pro Advice Now
If you have a dissent, a non-response, or you simply want to understand your Section 10 options, contact Simple Survey. Notices start from £25 per adjoining ownership, with agreed surveyor administration typically £300, depending on complexity and owners.