⚖️ Party Wall Disputes: When a Third Surveyor Oversteps

The Appeal Against Alex Frame’s Award under scrutiny again!

A recent appeal in the Central London County Court sheds light on serious concerns about how third surveyors exercise their powers under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The case — Cohen v Simmons & Goldsmith — arose after building works at Briarfield Avenue, London, where adjoining owners alleged damage to their property.

📌 Background

  • Party Wall Notice served: 8 October 2021

  • Adjoining Owners dissented and appointed William Weaver (Peter Barry Surveyors Ltd).

  • Building Owners appointed Christopher Harris MRICS.

  • Third Surveyor: initially Howard Coyne FRICS, later replaced by Alex Frame.

  • Primary award served: 2 February 2022, including a Schedule of Condition and provisions for making good any damage.

After completion, the two appointed surveyors inspected and — while noting possible hairline cracks — could not confirm whether these were new or had worsened. They agreed on a £400 contribution toward future redecoration. Importantly, there was no dispute between them.

🔑 The Problem

Despite both surveyors being in agreement, the Adjoining Owners bypassed the process and unilaterally referred the matter to the Third Surveyor. Mr Frame:

  • Ordered two ceilings to be replaced.

  • Allowed 16 days’ hotel accommodation for the adjoining owners (including a newborn child).

  • Awarded £10,917 compensation plus his own fees of £1,512.

This represented a dramatic escalation from the £400 determined by the appointed surveyors.

⚖️ Grounds of Appeal

The Building Owners — assisted by Lee Kyson, who reviewed Mr Frame’s award and prepared the appeal documents — challenged the decision on multiple grounds:

  1. No Crystallised Dispute
    Under section 10(11) of the Act, a Third Surveyor can only act where there is a dispute. Both appointed surveyors were in agreement, and the adjoining owners had not sought to resolve matters directly with the building owners.
    ➡️ Without a crystallised dispute, there was nothing for Mr Frame to determine.

  2. Jurisdictional Overreach
    Clause 4(c) of the primary award required sums to be agreed between the owners or determined by the two surveyors. The adjoining owners sidestepped this by appealing directly to Mr Frame, undermining the binding primary award.

  3. Lack of Causation Evidence
    The Schedule of Condition — prepared by the adjoining owners’ own surveyor — described the ceilings as already cracked and not in “fair and reasonable condition.”
    ➡️ No evidence linked the alleged damage to the notifiable works.
    ➡️ “May have worsened” or “may be new cracks” is not proof.

  4. Disproportionate Costs

    • Replacement of ceilings not justified by evidence.

    • Hotel costs (16 nights, £6,240) grossly inflated when the work could reasonably be completed in a few days with proper resourcing.

    • Only one hotel quotation obtained; no cost-saving alternatives considered.

  5. Bias and Procedural Failings

    • Mr Frame corresponded directly with the adjoining owners without properly involving the building owners.

    • Quotations and evidence were not transparently shared with both surveyors.

    • His conclusions appeared to adopt the adjoining owners’ position wholesale.

📊 Crack Classifications Ignored

The Building Research Establishment (BRE) sets out industry standards for crack widths.

  • Hairline to 1mm = redecorate.

  • 1–5mm = fill and repaint.
    ➡️ Nowhere did the evidence suggest cracks beyond this range. Full ceiling replacement was entirely disproportionate.

🚨 Why This Matters

This case highlights systemic risks in the third surveyor system:

  • When surveyors overreach jurisdiction, awards can become inflated and unfair.

  • The lack of clear procedural safeguards leaves building owners vulnerable to exaggerated claims.

  • Transparency, evidence, and proportionality are essential if the Act is to function fairly.

📝 Conclusion — And the Confidential Ending

The appeal challenged whether Mr Frame’s award was lawful, proportionate, and within his jurisdiction. If upheld, it would reinforce the principle that:

  • A third surveyor cannot invent disputes.

  • Awards must be based on evidence of causation, not speculation.

  • Proportionality must guide compensation, especially where sums escalate tenfold from the appointed surveyors’ agreement.

🔒 The matter did not proceed to a published judgment. Instead, it was concluded by way of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). While the final settlement terms remain confidential, the case itself serves as a cautionary example: a third surveyor’s powers are not limitless, and awards that lack evidence or proportionality can and should be challenged.