Overview
The RICS party wall legislation and procedure guidance is presented as a professional standard for RICS members. It is a useful starting point, but in our view it does not fully meet the practical needs of the public, building owners, adjoining owners or many surveyors.
This article explains where we think the guidance falls short and how it could be improved.
1. It is overly generic
The award template does not deal with many project-specific issues. That can lead to important details being overlooked.
Some surveyors treat a generic template as though it is enough in every case. In our view, that is wrong. An award should be specific to the property, the works and the risks being addressed.
2. It is not public-friendly enough
The guidance uses technical and legal language that many homeowners will not easily understand.
Although professional standards need precision, the party wall process affects ordinary homeowners. Guidance that cannot be understood by the public has limited value for the public.
3. It lacks practical detail
Despite its length, the guidance gives limited practical detail on common issues such as:
- access conditions;
- protection measures;
- chimney breast removal;
- roof works;
- temporary weathering;
- practical dispute handling;
- proportionate fee assessment.
These are the issues that often cause real disputes.
4. It does not do enough on impartiality
Many parties worry about surveyor impartiality, especially where surveyors appear to be commercially aligned with one side or where fees are escalating.
In our view, the guidance should give clearer practical direction on conflicts of interest, perceived bias, conduct and how surveyors should demonstrate impartiality throughout the process.
5. It gives insufficient guidance on fees
There is little practical guidance on what reasonable fees look like. That creates uncertainty and allows fee-driven surveyors to seek excessive fees.
The absence of clearer fee examples damages trust in the party wall industry.
6. It could be better on cost allocation
The guidance could do more to explain when costs should be allocated differently. Not every cost should automatically fall on the building owner. Clear examples would help prevent misuse of the process.
7. It has not kept pace with technology
The award template could be easier to adopt and use. Many surveyors still rely on older templates because they are more familiar or easier to edit.
The guidance could also say more about electronic communication, electronic signatures and collaborative document tools, which are now routine in professional practice.
8. It is too rigid for many real cases
A one-size-fits-all approach rarely works well. Party wall matters range from simple chimney breast removals to complex basement excavations. A template must be adaptable.
Recommendations for improvement
In our view, the guidance would be more useful if it included:
- clearer project-specific award clauses;
- simpler language for homeowners;
- better practical guidance on access and protection;
- examples of reasonable fees;
- clearer examples of cost allocation;
- an editable award template;
- guidance on electronic signatures and digital communication;
- supplementary homeowner guidance.
Final thought
The RICS guidance is useful, but it should not be treated as a complete practical authority for every party wall matter. Better, clearer and more practical guidance would help reduce disputes and improve public confidence.