Legal question - party wall shenanigans

[Tim Streater]

Just what I would have expected. That however seems to contradict what the person to whom I was replying said.

[GB]

You might be best off to read about the PWA. Try this

[Onetap]

Yes, there're two issues.

1) Whether the developer can join onto the existing wall or the distance that must be maintained. Legal advice may be required, and an objection, if valid, could be made to the planning application.

2) Whether any permitted work undermines or damages the existing adjacent property. This is for a local RICS surveyor who should be familiar with the PWA and how to stop the work if they go ahead without an agreement, as they often try to do. Both parties have to appoint surveyors, or they appoint one agreed surveyor. The developer pays the surveyor(s) acting for the adjacent property.

[GB]

to stop the work if they go ahead without an agreement, as they often try to do.

If they go ahead without PWA notices being served, you can get an injunction to stop them.

[RobertL]

But we must bear in mind that this is a civil act. Building Control will n= ot enforce it - you have to enforce it youself through the courts. I think= a lot of people do just ignore it. As others have said, it's worth being = proactive to make it clear early on that you will be expecting a PWA and to= have your own RICS surveyor advising you.

[djc]

A party wall is a shared wall. If at present there is no building, only a gap between houses then it is not at present a party wall. Is the gap there because at one time a building in that space was demolished? If so then the wall may be a party wall. If not then it would seem to be a boundary wall.

[tim.....]

In this particular case there may be an alternative solution, but the general case is the (part) owner of a party wall HAS to allow the other part owner to do whatever works is required.

And FWIW there is generally no sanction that can be applied (by the first owner) if the second owner does the work without permission.

tim

[Tim Streater]

But AIUI there is, as yet, *no* party wall, merely that the OP fears there may be one. Therefore it would seem to me that the OP doesn't have to agree to there being one.

[js.b1]

One point not mentioned.

Your house insurance may be restricted if they do undermine your foundation= s and your wall falls into the hole.

Remember the 45 degree rule from the bottom of your foundations applies etc= , so excavating a ruddy big trench WILL cause the collapse of your wall unl= ess it happens to be a very thick raft and even then the ringbeam can regis= ter its dissent.

Check if your house insurance offers free legal advice, which will be a) wh= ether you are covered should something to wrong (such as Schedule 24 pipe r= unning alongside your house owned by railway undertaker and they go right t= hrough it, similar event lost a block of apartments recently) and b) what t= hey advise under their free legal cover. They can be quite helpful, use the= m if available.

[Man at B&Q]

[e-mail]...

---------------------

I don't think it does.

The question is whether he can refuse to enter into agreement. It would, of course, make thing a whole lot more complicated if problems were to arise.

MBQ

[Hugo Nebula]

The PWA and any agreements, etc., are nothing to do with the public sector.

[Tim Streater]

The notion that you don't just accept any old agreement shoved in front of your nose by a private sector supplier, but that you negotiate the terms and *then* sign, is however a principle that seems - too often - to escape those in the public sector.

[Onetap]

Indeedy, but they may plan on having the work affecting the PW finished before you can see a solicitor and slap an injuction on them. You need the RICS bloke primed and ready to spring into action.

[GB]

you can see a solicitor and slap an injuction on them. You need the RICS bloke primed and ready to spring into action.

You can get an injunction the same day.