The short answer
The Act does not require a routine post-work inspection in every case. One is useful where it serves the Act’s purpose — regulating notifiable works and resolving disputes — but it should not be treated as automatic.
Why it matters
Before work, the key record is the schedule of condition, the benchmark against which any later damage allegation is judged. After work, a post-work inspection may be appropriate where the adjoining owner alleges damage, the award provides for it, the works were unusually high risk, or both owners agree it would help close matters down; the surveyor can then compare condition and, if needed, make a further award on damage or compensation. Routine inspections where there is no complaint can add unnecessary cost and blur the surveyor’s role — a surveyor should not give casual reassurance or private opinions outside the award process if that risks undermining impartiality.
What to do now
- Make sure a proper schedule of condition is taken before works begin.
- Reserve post-work inspections for a real reason — a damage allegation, an award requirement, or genuine agreement.
- Deal with any damage through a further award rather than informal reassurance.
Common mistakes
- Treating a post-work inspection as automatic.
- Skipping the pre-work schedule of condition that makes any inspection meaningful.
- Giving informal opinions outside the award and risking impartiality.
When to call Coburns
If damage is alleged after works, or you want a post-work position recorded properly, get in touch and we will inspect and deal with it under the award.