Overview
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 does not require a routine post-work inspection in every case. The purpose of the Act is to regulate notifiable works and resolve disputes. A post-work inspection is useful where it serves that purpose, but it should not be treated as automatic.
Before the works
Before work starts, the most important record is usually the schedule of condition. This records the adjoining owner's property before the notifiable works begin.
If damage is alleged later, the schedule provides the benchmark for comparison.
After the works
After works are complete, a post-work inspection may be appropriate if:
- the adjoining owner alleges damage;
- the award specifically provides for an inspection;
- the works were unusually high risk;
- both owners agree that an inspection would help close matters down.
In those circumstances, the surveyor can inspect, compare the condition and, if necessary, make a further award dealing with damage or compensation.
Why routine inspections can be problematic
Routine post-work inspections can add unnecessary cost where no complaint has been made and no issue is apparent.
They can also blur the surveyor's role. A surveyor appointed under the Act should not give casual reassurance, private opinions or informal conclusions outside the award process if doing so risks undermining impartiality.
The better approach
Post-work inspections should be used where there is a reason for them. That reason may be a damage allegation, an award requirement or a genuine agreement between the owners.
Conclusion
Post-work inspections can be valuable, but they should not be automatic. They should be reserved for cases where they help resolve a dispute, check a specific risk or formally close down an issue under the award.