We also have a short informative video on this case.
The case of Amir-Siddique v Kowaliw 2018, provides all important commentary on an adjoining owner’s surveyor appointment.
To provide background on this case, the building owner accused the adjoining owner of acting unreasonably with the refusal of an agreed surveyor appointment.
This refusal resulting in the building owner incurring unnecessary cost in having to appoint their own surveyor.
The case found itself heard in the Central London County Court by His Honour Judge Bailey. Judge Bailey’s judgement and commentary confirmed that the adjoining owners had acted unreasonably by not permitting their preferred surveyor to act as agreed party wall surveyor.
He went on to order that the adjoining owners were liable to reimburse the building owner for their own party wall surveyor as a result of the agreed surveyor appointment refusal.
Our commentary on the judgement is that an adjoining owner should be prepared to allow their party wall surveyor to take on the agreed surveyor role.
Presumably, their surveyor has been vetted in the conventional manner by them and appointed as a result of their experience and merit.
An experienced and sensible Party Wall Surveyor is able to navigate any perceived partiality.
At Stokemont, we take the approach that the surveyor represents the property as opposed to the owners.
Their role is to review the building owner’s works from the perspective of the adjoining owner’s property, ensuring the risks are as low as they can be within the provisions that the Party Wall etc Act 1996 allows.
This emphasises the importance of an adjoining owner ensuring their surveyor is appointed on their merit and experience, as they may end up acting for both owners.
