Security for expenses is one of the most emotionally charged topics in party wall because it involves money and perceived trust. Building owners often feel accused. Adjoining owners often feel exposed. Both perspectives can be rational depending on the facts.
At Simple Survey, we treat security as a risk-control tool, not a bargaining chip. The question is not “Who’s right?”; the question is “Is security justified, and if so, what is proportionate?”
When security is commonly justified
Security is usually more rational when there is credible risk that:
- the works might stop mid-way,
- funding stability is uncertain,
- the adjoining owner could be left with costs caused by interruption,
- the scale and complexity of works create meaningful exposure.
Security is less rational where the works are modest and the risk is speculative. “I’m nervous” is understandable but not always a sufficient basis for substantial security.
The three elements of a proper security proposal
If security is requested, we insist it must answer three questions clearly:
- What risk is being secured?
Not “general concern”. A specific risk: interruption, non-completion, or exposure to defined costs. - How was the amount calculated?
A proper figure is reasoned. An unreasoned figure is usually leverage. - How is it held and released?
Release is where disputes often erupt. If release triggers are vague, the money feels trapped indefinitely, which creates resentment and escalation.
Forms security can take (and why structure matters)
Security can be structured in different ways depending on what is proportionate. The form matters because it determines:
- who controls release,
- how transparent the mechanism is,
- how quickly disputes can be resolved if they arise.
A sloppy arrangement increases distrust. A structured arrangement reduces it.
How to respond to a demand without inflaming costs
If you are the building owner and security is demanded, do not respond with outrage. Outrage produces letters; letters produce fees. Respond with structure:
- “Please specify the risk you believe requires security.”
- “Please provide a breakdown showing how the figure has been calculated.”
- “Please propose how the security would be held and what triggers release.”
This shifts the discussion from emotion to specifics. Inflated requests usually shrink when forced into specifics.
How adjoining owners should request security sensibly
If you are the adjoining owner, a sensible request is:
- specific about the risk,
- proportionate about the sum,
- clear about release.
A request that reads as leverage (“pay me or you can’t proceed”) tends to harden positions and increase time and fees for everyone.
Helpful FAQs
Is security always required if requested?
No. It should be justified and proportionate to the circumstances.
Does requesting security mean the neighbour is “difficult”?
Not necessarily. It can be a rational risk-control request. The key is whether it is proportionate and properly structured.
What keeps security discussions cost-effective?
Specific questions, reasoned amounts, and clear release terms.
Get Cost Saving Pro Advice Now
If security is being raised and you want a calm, proportionate approach that avoids cost spiral, contact Simple Survey. Notices start from £25 per adjoining ownership, with agreed surveyor administration typically £300, depending on complexity and owners.