The short answer
Most party wall matters should be resolved efficiently — the Act is designed to resolve disputes, not generate fees. A minority of fee-driven surveyors inflate costs, usually at the building owner’s expense, and the best protection is early, evidence-based challenge.
Why it matters
Common tactics include:
- manufacturing or exaggerating disputes, so a simple matter looks complex;
- demanding unnecessary third-party reports (engineer reviews where the design is clear, damp or drain surveys with no trigger);
- padding schedules of condition with trivial detail and excessive photographs;
- inflating timesheets with vague entries and surveyor rates for administration;
- blocking progress to manufacture more work, then charging for the extra correspondence;
- wrongly declaring a notice invalid to restart the process;
- over-specifying award conditions beyond the real risk;
- giving fear-based advice to adjoining owners (“do not consent — appoint me, it is free for you”);
- dragging matters to the third surveyor over points that should be agreed;
- supporting betterment damage claims that upgrade rather than make good;
- exploiting stressed homeowners with jargon and urgency.
In each case the question is who benefits from the delay or complexity. Reasonable fees are payable, but excessive, poorly explained or non-Act work is not.
What to do now
- Challenge early: ask for reasons, evidence, proportionality and clear outputs.
- Question unnecessary reports, padded schedules and vague timesheet entries.
- Resist tactical invalidation, over-specified award conditions and betterment claims.
- Refer genuinely disputed fees to the third surveyor, but keep that proportionate too.
Common mistakes
- Paying a high fee simply because it comes from a surveyor.
- Accepting delay and complexity as diligence.
- Letting making-good claims become upgrades at your expense.
When to call Coburns
If a matter feels like it is being inflated, send us the correspondence and fee claims and we will tell you what is reasonable.