Overview
Once surveyors are appointed under section 10 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, they are statutory dispute resolvers. They are not agents, advocates or private advisers for the owner who appointed them.
That distinction is essential. The legitimacy of the process depends on impartiality.
1. Impartiality is central
A party wall surveyor must be seen to act independently and fairly. If a surveyor gives one owner a private opinion on the merits of the dispute, the other owner may reasonably believe that the surveyor has taken sides.
That damages confidence in the process.
2. Why private opinions are wrong
Private substantive opinions can:
- make the surveyor appear aligned with one owner;
- influence one party outside the award process;
- undermine the appearance of a fair tribunal;
- create a conflict between the surveyor's statutory role and private advice;
- make later awards more vulnerable to challenge.
There is an important distinction between explaining procedure and giving private advice. A surveyor can explain how the Act works. They should not privately coach one owner on how to win a disputed point.
3. Conflict of interest
Once a surveyor moves from neutral decision-maker to adviser, the conflict is serious. They cannot properly be both tribunal member and advocate.
In our view, disclosure alone is unlikely to cure that problem where the opinion goes to the substance of the dispute.
4. Consequences
Giving private opinions outside the award process can lead to:
- loss of confidence by the parties;
- applications to the third surveyor;
- court challenges to later awards;
- complaints to professional bodies;
- pressure for the surveyor to step aside.
Conclusion
Party wall surveyors should make decisions in awards, not in private conversations with one owner. A surveyor who gives substantive private opinions risks compromising the impartiality on which the Act depends. In serious cases, the only proper course may be to resign.