The names portrayed below refer to people in their professional capacity and are openly available on the internet either by way of their websites or the P&T website They were also transmitted to me in unsolicited emails.

This has been written out rather quickly and I will be elaborating on this later….

I must admit I was surprised and disappointed at the action taken by P&T, however, it has shed a new light on the approach taken by them and their views. I had to take ex parte action to enable the BO to commence work as he was about to lose his builder and I could make no sensical headway with the AOS so I served an ex parte Award in accordance with both sections 10(6)+(7) and with my AO’s blessing. I do not take such action without first discussing with my AO!

P&T’s actions condone David Turner MRICS C.Build E FCABE FFPWS ACIArb MAE ’s approach to party wall matters.

Despite not having a disciplinary procedure my details were soon removed from the P&T website and I was denied access. Is this in itself not a disciplinary action?

The complaint was upheld, the email informing me of this came from the National & London Branch Secretary Mr Andrew Schofield, therefore, as Ms Shirley Waldron Vice Chairman of the National Council and Stuart Birrell, then both the London & National committees are in agreement as to the correctness of the questions put to me.

I have not touched on the ‘do as we say not as we do’ element on this page as yet nor have I added any details on how a relatively high profile P&T member sought to use the third surveyor for punitive measures against me and tried to drag his appointing owner into a dispute for his own personal gain. I will elaborate on this in due course.

Party wall matter

I will elaborate on what happened and the events leading to my ex parte Award and why I believe P&T view that a notice day notice is a requirement irrespective of whether a ‘request’ has been served is wrong.

click here for my views of 10(6) + (7)

the meeting

Mr Turner complained to everyone including the P&T, subsequently with regard to my P&T membership I received the following from Mr Stuart Birrell FRICS, director of Murray Birrell chartered surveyors of 128 Mount Street, Mayfair, London, W1K 8NU

Dear Mr Kyson

Further to our telephone conversation, I am writing on behalf of the Pyramus & Thisbe Club.

A complaint has been received from David Turner regarding matters relating to 1st adjoining owner [name removed by LK]. A copy of the letter of complaint is attached. We have copious other documents which relate to this matter.

You will appreciate we are not a professional body and do not have a disciplinary procedure. We are a club and learned society, we exist to educate and promote good practice but we do expect members to behave in a manner befitting the club and comply with the Code of Protocol.

We would like to discuss the following with you: 

  1. Not negotiating meaningfully regarding suggested alterations to the draft award.

  2. Serving an ex parte award without giving notice under clauses 10(6) or 10(7) and not informing the other surveyor of your actions.

  3. Not engaging regarding suggested referral to third surveyor.

  4. Not providing complaints procedure when requested (RICS Regulation).

As such we would like to arrange a meeting to discuss the matter with you. It will be with myself in my capacity as a committee member of the London Branch, together with Shirley Waldron, Vice Chairman of the National Council. We would suggest the following dates; 22nd or 23rd August or 4th September pm or 5th or 6th September.  We will arrange for a room to be available in central London, probably at my Mayfair office.


Stuart Birrell (for and on behalf of The Pyramus & Thisbe Club)

The meeting between myself, Mr Birrell and Ms Shirley Waldron B(Arch) Hons Dip. Arch RIBA of Delva Patman Redler of Thavies Inn House, 3-4 Holborn Circus, London EC1N 2HA in 2014 took place on 22nd August 2018 at 10:00.

I will be responding here in more detail but you only have to read the questions. Were the questions really written by P&T committee members telling someone else they are wrong? Mr Birrell & Ms Waldron, both committee members of the P&T were telling me I was wrong as I was in breach of questions put before me!

Personally, I find the questions themselves do not exactly instill one with confidence or that the authors of such questions are fully conversant in the Act and furthermore, are not what I would expect from the committee of a ‘learned society’. After all it is the London committee and the national and London branch secretary who condone the questions, otherwise they would not have upheld the complaint.

Just some of my reasons are given below to the questions raised by Mr Birrell and Ms Waldron. Bearing in mind they are both committee members of P&T a ‘learned society’ in the pursuit of excellence.

  1. Not negotiating meaningfully regarding suggested alterations to the draft award.

    1. I find it difficult to comprehend that a surveyor with the credentials MRICS C.Build E FCABE FFPWS ACIArb MAE would insist on the amendments as put forward by Mr Turner, some of which will be highlighted above later, especially in regard to raising questions about ownership of the building owner’s property some 3 months after notice was served, which related to a completely different building.

  2. Serving an ex parte award without giving notice under clauses 10(6) or 10(7) and not informing the other surveyor of your actions.

    1. Where are ‘clauses’ 10(6) + (7) in the Act? the Act only refers to ‘sections’ and ‘subsections’. The Act is legislation, not a contract.

    2. Where in the Act is it a requirement for ‘giving notice’ under clauses (??) (6) +(7)? The Act clearly states under section 10(7) ‘…neglects to act effectively for a period of ten days beginning with the day on which either party or the surveyor of the other party serves a request on him…' Both Mr Birrell and Ms Waldron kept insisting that ‘request’ is ‘notice’, to the extent that when reading out to me that section of the Act Mr Birrell kept replacing ‘request’ with ‘notice’, and that there is a requirement to serve a 10 day notice irrespective of whether a request has been made. Furthermore, under 10(6) there is no requirement for such notice, neither Mr Birrell nor Ms Waldron could point to any relevant section of the Act.

    3. Neither Mr Birrell nor Ms Waldron could point me to any relevant sections of the Act relating to informing the ‘other surveyor’ of my actions. I did not inform the other surveyor because both sections 10(6) + (7) state ‘..and anything so done by him shall be as effectual as if he had been an agreed surveyor.’ The Award is not the property of the other surveyor and the dispute between the parties was resolved. If the owner receiving the ex parte Award chooses to, they can advise their surveyor accordingly. If they choose not to inform him, who am I to decide against their wishes.

    4. It is interesting to note that the Green Book 3rd Ed. does not support their statements in relation to s10(6)+(7), when I pointed this out, asking them for a copy of the Green Book, I was surprised to learn that Mr Birrell does not have a copy in his office! P&T committee members without a copy of the Green Book between them? I should have brought my own but had decided to leave it behind as I did not wish to carry books across London with me; after all I had been summoned to a meeting in Mr Birrell’s Mayfair office. I wrongly assumed he would have relative reference to books to support his accusations.

    5. On the basis that I did not also serve a 10-day notice Mr Birrell declared my ex parte Award ultra vires.

  3. Not engaging regarding suggested referral to third surveyor.

    1. email from Mr Turner on 7th November 2017

      Good Morning Mr Kyson,

      Thank you for the email.  

      I select Graham North as Third Surveyor.

    2. As stated above Mr Turner on 4th February 2017 Mr Turner’s suggested referral stated ‘Clearly, I do not think that you and I are going to see eye to eye on this and I think that the Third Surveyor will have to make the Award with one of us. I shall try to contact Andy Schofield shortly to move matters on.’ and following up with

      Andy Schofield is happy to make an Award with us. He suggested a meeting which the three of us attend, with a view to all three of us preparing the Award. Perhaps you would let me have your thoughts.

      My thoughts? I responded ‘Good morning David, Mr Schofield is not the Third Surveyor.’ Quite clearly I did engage.

    3. What kind of question is this? How can I engage in such matters when Mr Schofield was not the Third Surveyor?! Is asking the wrong Third Surveyor to enter into an Award acting effectively? Obviously P&T believe it is.

    4. Is there a requirement in the Act to engage with a suggested referral to the third surveyor? given that section 10(10) states all three or any two of the surveyors or section 10(11) either of the surveyors may call upon the third surveyor…’