Since its implementation in 1997, the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 has been largely successful in its mission to prevent disputes. Remarkably few party wall issues ever reach the higher courts. In fact, in over two decades, very few cases have come before the Court of Appeal, which is often cited as evidence of the Act’s effectiveness. The wide powers given to surveyors to resolve matters and the structured procedure mean most disagreements are settled long before litigation is needed.
The Act is applauded for being an “enabling Act” – it empowers property owners to carry out improvements or necessary repairs that might otherwise be stymied by legal uncertainty. Builders and developers appreciate that, so long as they follow the rules, they have a lawful right to proceed with works affecting shared walls or boundaries. This has likely facilitated countless loft conversions, extensions, and basement digs that improve housing stock, which might have been much harder to coordinate without the Act.
Many commentators and practitioners praise the balance the Act strikes between neighbours. It doesn’t unduly favor the building owner or the adjoining owner. Instead, it protects the adjoining owner’s property (via notice, input by surveyors, and compensation for damage) while allowing the building owner reasonable freedom to modify their property. This dual benefit – protection with permission – is often held up as a model for how to handle neighbourly interactions in construction.
The use of surveyors as dispute resolvers is seen as a positive feature. Surveyors (experienced in construction) can often reach pragmatic solutions more quickly than a court process. The Act’s structure encourages neighbours to behave reasonably – if they don’t, the surveyors or ultimately a court can step in. This has created a body of Party Wall surveyor professionals who specialise in smoothing out these conflicts. Their expertise and the quasi-arbitration nature of the Award process is frequently praised for being more flexible and less adversarial than lawsuits.
Adjoining owners often commend the Act because it gives them peace of mind. They know they will get a surveyed condition report and an Award saying any damage will be fixed or paid for. The requirement to “make good” damage or pay compensation is explicitly built into almost every Award and backed by Section 7(2) of the Act. This guarantees that if something does go wrong due to the works, the neighbour isn’t left high and dry. That safety net is a direct result of the Act.
One practical issue is that many people (especially first-time home renovators) do not know about the Act. It’s not uncommon for building owners to start work innocently unaware they should have served notice – or even willfully ignoring it. This can lead to panicked disputes when an adjoining owner discovers their rights after the fact. Critics argue that the Act is only as good as its observance; if people don’t know about it, it can’t fulfill its purpose. There have been calls for greater public awareness or even solicitor/conveyancer obligations to inform new homeowners of the Act when they purchase a property.
A major controversy arises when a building owner doesn’t invoke the Act (by not serving notice). Until recently, it was unclear if an adjoining owner could somehow force the Act’s dispute resolution to apply in such a case. In 2023, the Court of Appeal finally clarified that if no notice is served, the procedures of the Act cannot be later imposed – the neighbour must resort to ordinary legal remedies.
This ruling (Power & Kyson v Shah [2023], known by the tagline “no notice, no Act”) highlighted a gap in the law: a recalcitrant building owner can effectively sidestep the Act’s surveyor process, leaving the neighbour to seek an injunction or sue for damages in court. While the neighbour isn’t without remedy, those remedies are exactly what the Act was supposed to help avoid (costly and slow court action). Some see this as a flaw: the Act has “no teeth” to compel a rogue building owner to engage. It’s a point of criticism that the legislation might need an amendment to allow adjoining owners or authorities to invoke the Act even if the building owner doesn’t play ball.
Although the majority of party wall surveyors are reputable and strive for fairness, there are occasional complaints of “party wall surveyor abuse.” For example, some surveyors might encourage adjoining owners to dissent and demand an elaborate Award (and perhaps unnecessary work) simply to generate fees – since the building owner typically pays, an unethical surveyor might see an opportunity to inflate hours.
Likewise, an adjoining owner might use the Act as a way to delay or frustrate a neighbour’s project, by being uncooperative or extremely picky, driving up costs for the building owner. On the flip side, a building owner might try to bully a neighbour into consenting by downplaying works or starting without notice. These behaviours are not the Act’s fault per se, but critics note the Act can be a tool for gamesmanship. The lack of a fixed fee schedule (fees must just be “reasonable”) sometimes results in disputes over surveyor charges.
Another criticism is that the Act’s procedure can seem disproportionately complex or expensive for small projects. For example, if a homeowner wants to remove a chimney breast on a party wall, they must go through notices and possibly end up paying for two surveyors and an Award – which might cost far more than the actual work! Some adjoining owners have felt it’s overkill for very minor works where the risk is minimal. There are calls to perhaps simplify the process for minor works, maybe via a shorter form of notice or a fixed schedule of conditions, to reduce the burden on homeowners.
Because so few cases go to court, much of party wall practice is based on surveyors’ “custom and practice.” This can lead to inconsistencies. One surveyor might always award certain protections, another might not. Terms like “necessary” or “special foundation” can be interpreted differently. Until a dispute makes it to court, these issues remain in the surveying realm. Some critics (often lawyers) say there is too little case law guidance, which means occasionally surveyors take approaches that might not strictly align with the Act. The flip side is others argue that flexibility is the Act’s strength, not a weakness.
While the Act allows injunctions or appeals, enforcing the finer points of an Award can be troublesome. If a building owner drags their feet on repairing damage, the neighbour might have to go to court anyway to get compliance. If a neighbour refuses access even after being ordered, police involvement is possible but not always straightforward. Essentially, the Act relies on goodwill to a degree. When goodwill is absent, the tools to enforce (like urgent injunctions) can be costly and cumbersome to deploy, which is a point of criticism.
In light of the 2023 Court of Appeal decision, many experts have discussed reforming the Act to close the loophole. One suggestion is an amendment that would allow an adjoining owner to apply to court to appoint a surveyor or affirm the Act’s jurisdiction even if no notice was served, thereby bringing the rogue building owner into the fold. Alternatively, giving magistrates courts or local authorities a role in enforcing notice service has been floated. So far, the government hasn’t amended the Act, but this area is now a hot topic for reform discussions in professional circles.
Another reform idea is introducing greater regulation or guidance for party wall surveyors. Currently, anyone not party to the dispute can technically act as a surveyor (they don’t even have to be licensed, though in practice most are qualified surveyors or engineers). Some propose that surveyors under the Act should be certified or members of a recognised professional body with a code of conduct, to prevent abuse. Additionally, setting recommended fee scales or caps for routine matters could prevent “fee surprises.”
The Pyramus & Thisbe Society (an industry group for party wall professionals) and the RICS have both discussed creating more standardised procedures to make outcomes and costs more predictable. This isn’t a change to the Act itself, but part of modernising practice.
There are calls to introduce a two-tier system: one for simple works and one for complex works. For example, if someone is just underpinning a short stretch of foundation or inserting a single beam, maybe the Act could allow a simplified agreed schedule without full surveyor involvement unless a problem arises. This would require careful drafting to avoid weakening protections, but it’s on the wishlist of some property owners and contractors who find the current one-size-fits-all approach onerous for minor works.
While not a legislative reform, many advocate for updated official guidance. The government’s explanatory booklet (while helpful) could be updated to include common case scenarios and perhaps a flowchart, making it more user-friendly. Likewise, making it standard practice (perhaps via conveyancing protocols) to inform people of party wall obligations when they plan extensions would preempt issues. In 2016, a small update was made to allow electronic service of notice, showing that the Act can adapt to technology; further modernisation (like an online register of Awards or template e-notices) could be considered to drag the process fully into the 21st century.
Some have discussed whether the Act’s scope should be expanded or clarified. For example, with the rise of basement excavations in cities, should the 6-metre rule be revisited for deeper digs? Or with new techniques like airspace developments (adding floors on top of buildings), are the definitions of “party wall” sufficient to cover all scenarios? The general consensus is the Act still handles most scenarios well, but future construction trends might necessitate tweaks.
This High Court case followed a situation where works under the Act caused severe damage – the neighbour’s building had to be demolished and rebuilt. The dispute was over how to measure compensation: should the building owner pay full reinstatement cost or a lesser amount based on property value? The court held that the Act’s compensation should follow normal tort principles – often meaning full reinstatement cost to put the neighbour back as they were. This case is notable because it reassured adjoining owners that the Act would not short-change them: if the worst happens, you can be compensated fully. It also showed that courts can still be involved to interpret the Act on points like damages.
In this case, the issue was how far “security for expenses” could go. Traditionally, surveyors thought an adjoining owner could only request security if the works involved entering the neighbour’s land. But the court in Kaye v Lawrence decided that any work covered by the Act could justify a security payment, not just those directly on the neighbour’s land. This widened the protection for adjoining owners but also raised the stakes for building owners, who might have to stump up large sums before starting work. It generated debate among practitioners (some felt it made security requests too easy, others felt it was a proper reading of the Act).
Mentioned earlier, this is the “no notice, no Act” Court of Appeal case. Its outcome – that an adjoining owner cannot invoke the Act if the building owner hasn’t served notice – has been somewhat controversial. Many in the field predicted or hoped the court would allow a workaround to enforce the Act’s spirit, but the clear ruling put the onus squarely on the building owner to do things right from the start. This case has spurred calls for reform, as it exposed that a mischievous building owner could try to avoid the Act entirely. The practical takeaway is that adjoining owners must be vigilant and, if necessary, seek an injunction quickly if a neighbour ignores the Act.
There have been questions about whether adding upward extensions triggers the Act (since no party wall in the traditional sense is affected). Generally it might not, unless the work involves strengthening a party wall or erecting framework on it. Some recent disputes in dense cities have revolved around whether the Act should apply to new rooftop structures. While no landmark case yet, it’s an area of controversy especially as developers eye “airspace” projects. This edges into planning law as well, but it’s on the radar of party wall specialists who want clarity on such modern extensions.
Many adjoining owners (neighbours) appreciate the Act’s protections but criticise its limitations. A common refrain is, “It’s great if the building owner follows it, but if they don’t, I have to scramble.” Neighbours also sometimes feel the Act doesn’t prevent all stress – even with an Award, living next to construction is noisy and dusty. Some have suggested the Act could mandate more considerate construction practices (though that veers into building control territory).
Building owners often complain that the Act adds time, cost, and red tape. For someone renovating their own home, the formality can be daunting. There’s also a perception by some that neighbours can use the Act to “hold them to ransom” by dissenting and thus forcing surveyor costs on them. Horror stories of difficult neighbours and spiraling surveyor fees circulate in home improvement circles, leading to a certain wariness about the Act. However, many acknowledge that when neighbours are reasonable, the Act’s process is straightforward – indeed, neighbours might consent and no surveyors are needed, which is the simplest outcome.
Surveyors and lawyers generally view the Act positively, but with an acknowledgment that updates could help. Professional seminars frequently discuss tweaks – like the security for expenses, or how to handle new building methods – showing a healthy dialogue around refining the Act without throwing it out. There’s praise that the Act has saved a lot of people from legal battles, but also candid talk of where it shows its age (nearly 30 years on).
Occasionally, local or national media pick up on party wall disputes, especially if they turn dramatic (e.g., a basement dig causing subsidence next door). These stories sometimes cast the Act as not strong enough or too slow to respond to emergencies. Conversely, there have been pieces highlighting neighbours abusing the Act to extract concessions. Such reports can skew public perception, but they underscore that the Act, while generally low-profile, matters greatly to those caught in a dispute.
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 has proven its worth by largely keeping the peace between neighbours during construction. Its blend of rights and responsibilities has stood the test of time, but no law is perfect.
The controversies and criticisms have illuminated certain cracks: enforcement gaps, potential for misuse, and procedural burdens for small works. The discussions around reform indicate a desire to fine-tune rather than overhaul the Act. In the meantime, understanding the Act’s provisions (as this series of articles provides) is the best way for building owners and adjoining owners alike to navigate its requirements and ensure a fair outcome for both sides.