🧱 A Breakdown in Oversight: The Administrative Shortcomings of Karmjit Grewel of Coburns Party Wall.
📌 Introduction
In statutory dispute resolution under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, the integrity of appointments and the conduct of surveyors are paramount. This article examines a troubling sequence of events involving Karmjit Grewel (KG), whose actions—documented through extensive correspondence—reveal serious procedural failures. The case centres around Lee Kyson (LK), an experienced surveyor appointed to resolve a party wall matter, and the consequences of mismanagement that followed. It has just come to my attention that KG is an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators but does not show this on his website.
🧑⚖️ 1. The Initial Appointment and Breakdown
The matter began when the original Adjoining Owner’s Surveyor (AOS) declared himself incapable of continuing, triggering the need for a replacement. In accordance with statutory procedure, LK was appointed by the Adjoining Owners (AO).
Importantly, under the Party Wall Act, a surveyor’s appointment cannot be rescinded unilaterally. Once appointed, the surveyor forms part of a statutory tribunal and can only be removed under certain circumstances. This principle was not respected in the events that followed.
⚠️ 2. Conflict with KG and Procedural Missteps
Shortly after LK’s appointment, KG issued a Letter of Appointment (LoA) and a Party Wall Notice (PWN). LK challenged the validity of these documents.
LK believed that the Letter of Appointment (LoA) was signed by the contractor rather than the Building Owner (BO), raising questions about its validity. Additionally, the Party Wall Notices (PWN) issued by KG were vague and lacked sufficient detail. Following some unproductive email exchanges LK made a formal referral to the third surveyor challenging the legitimacy of the LoA and notices. Subsequently, KG paradoxically ‘withdrew’ the notices — an action that would not have been permissible had the notices been valid under the Act; and can you withdraw invalid notices ?
Having subsequently ‘withdrawn’ his notices, KG implicitly acknowledged procedural error. However, LK later received a phone call from Ben Mackie (BM) stating that he and KG had made an award—despite LK being the appointed surveyor.
This award was likely void, as it was made without a valid tribunal. LK believes that KG and BM had no authority to act jointly, and their actions undermined the statutory process.
🕵️♂️ 3. Unilateral Appointment and Misguided Decisions
Unbeknown to LK, the AO proceeded to appoint Ben Mackie of 'The Party Wall Collective', bypassing LK entirely. This appointment was made without consultation or formal termination of LK’s role, in direct contradiction to the statutory framework.
The AO was clearly misinformed, and unfortunately incurred costs that they should never have incurred. The procedural confusion and mismanagement led to unnecessary duplication of work and legal exposure.
Having spoken to Ben Mackie he responded and I have no reason to dispute what he states:
BM received a letter of appointment in good faith, however, after service of the award, the BO made BM aware that they had not instructed KG and that they had not signed the appointment letter presented to BM. BM concluded that the award was void and waived his fees, as he had reason to believe that the appointment letter was false, and having put his concerns to KG, he did not receive a satisfactory response. BM agrees with LK that the award was ‘void’. BM believes that the fees of all surveyors involved should not be the liability of either the BO or the AO.
The statement above from Ben also supports LK’s dispute with KG over his LoA and resulting PWN. Although Ben waived his fee, I was requested by the AO to progress matters and make a referral incurring me with a lot of work. Had the AO proceeded with me I would have ensured that a valid LoA was procured from KG. Ben was unlikely to have been aware of what had proceeded before his involvement.
LK also asked Karmjit Grewel if he wished to comment on this article before I published it. The response I received is shown below, which is not atypical of him as he is only able to resort to personal sleights rather address the facts; and comment on matters he knows nothing about i.e. ‘Shah’. etc. He does not live in my head even if his ego thinks he does 🤣, and has obviously been trying to do personal research on me of which he knows nothing. read about ‘Shah’: Why the Court of Appeal Got the Party Wall Act Wrong and Power v Shah: A Contradiction at the Heart of Party Wall Jurisdiction?
Dear Lee,
Publish this in full as my response to whatever it is you have to say:
Your link doesn't work for me so I have no idea what you have written.
To be honest, I don’t care. I don’t care about anything you have to say on any subject least of all party wall matters. You are a genuine no-mark. A builder turned surveyor who demonstrates the Peter principle to perfection.
Correct me if I am wrong but you don’t own the residential property listed as your business address - 59 Derham Gardens, Upminster RM14 3HB - so it seems that while I live rent-free in your head, you’re still paying rent in real life.
That’s pretty rare for a surveyor past retirement age. Even more so for one who charges like you do. For example, when you tried to charge one Mr Shah a very high fee for your worthless award in the infamous case that cemented your reputation as a kook. That reminds me, you never did tell me how many other similar awards you made for other unsuspecting members of the public. I wonder why that might be.
The fact that you refused to accept the Court’s decision on multiple occasions and have written various one sided articles attacking judgments, I could only guess you were worried of the effect of those cases, not just of the immediate financial stakes in the original case, but because an upheld judgment would set a damaging precedent and expose you to further claims for similar conduct in other matters.
Anyone with basic reasoning skills could see that the courts didn’t just disagree with you — they saw straight through your nonsense, over and over, exposing your understanding and application as plain wrong. You’re lucky they didn’t go further. You’re not the sharpest tool in the box, but worse than that, you are slow to take a hint. How many times did you get your arse handed to you? I lost count.
Meanwhile, you’ve been stewing on this for nearly a year, whereas I moved on immediately. That shows exactly what you are: obsessed with me, while I couldn’t care less about you or anything that dribbles out of your brain.
Let’s be blunt: you’re the laughing stock of the industry. A joke — and not even a good one. If you’re petty enough to publish another of your pathetic hit pieces, you’ll not only humiliate yourself further it will have no effect on me. Google isn’t important to my business, and no one reads your website anyway.
At your age, you should be enjoying retirement. But you can’t, can you? Not out of passion, but because you’ve got nothing else. No skill. No integrity. No charisma. No spark. No success. Just background static convincing yourself your right. But no one else is convinced.
So go ahead and obsess. I’ll keep laughing at you — the punchline to a bad joke. That’s your legacy. A tragic clown.
I wonder if you will ever admit that you failed to grasp even the most basic legal principles — such as what constitutes a lawful appointment under the Act. From the outset your position was contradictory: on the one hand attempting to dismiss a valid notice, while on the other claiming you had somehow been appointed, in what was clearly an ill-conceived effort to have your cake and eat it. The adjoining owner’s willingness to see you replaced spoke volumes about your refusal to make progress. And of course, you were not awarded anything, because you were never entitled to it. No — I don’t really wonder. I’m certain you won’t acknowledge any of this, or anything else that might expose your failings. Honesty would simply be too embarrassing for you.
In this case, you came across as a bad faith actor, completely out of your depth. To those involved, you weren’t seen as a serious professional but as someone intent on harm, operating in your own bubble, detached from the law and from the parties you were meant to help. It was inevitable that you were sidelined — and rightly so. It was the natural consequence of the way you conducted yourself.
So here’s my challenge: publish this as my response to whatever nonsense you have written (no doubt full of one sided gibberish). I don’t think you’ve got the integrity or strength of character. You come across as too weak of a man.
Let’s see.
Warm Regards
Karmjit
Surveying Team
💰 4. Dispute Over Fees and Legal Action
Following the phone call from BM and the AOs, LK was informed that the ‘dispute’ was now resolved by a new award. Subsequently, LK submitted his fees to the AO. The AOs disputed liability for the fees,
LK countered that the AOs had severed his statutory right to recover fees from the BO by believing he had unilaterally terminated LK’s appointment. As such, LK held the AOs personally responsible for the fees incurred.
With no resolution forthcoming, LK commenced litigation to recover the outstanding amount in the small claims court.
✅ 5. Full Settlement and Legal Vindication
The matter was ultimately resolved when the AO paid LK’s fees in full, including court costs and statutory interest. This outcome not only vindicated LK’s position but also highlighted the procedural failures that led to unnecessary legal action. LK’s fees £2340.00 (incl. VAT) + £115.00 court fee + £70.20 interest, in total £2525.20. These are costs that the AO should never have incurred.
📚 6. Lessons and Implications
This case exposes several critical shortcomings in KG’s conduct:
Issuing conflicting notices without proper authority.
Failing to respect statutory appointments and tribunal formation.
Participating in an invalid award with another surveyor.
Contributing to confusion and financial loss through poor communication and oversight.
It also underscores the importance of:
Clear statutory guidance for surveyor appointments.
Transparent communication between parties.
Accountability for procedural errors that lead to litigation.
🏁 Conclusion
The correspondence and events surrounding this case reveal a breakdown in professional standards and statutory procedure. Karmjit Grewel’s actions not only disrupted the resolution process but also led to unnecessary legal and financial consequences for the AOs. The full settlement of LK’s claim serves as a reminder that procedural integrity must be upheld at every stage of the Party Wall process.
A typical response from Karmjit Grewel confirming his errors:
Dear Lee,
Happy New Year.
The matter has concluded to the satisfaction of the parties.
There is no need to satisfy any of your requests for information as you have no standing, by your own definition.
Your confused beliefs can only lead to the conclusion that you are not appointed.
If I am not appointed because my LOA is faulty, it must follow that the notice served cannot be valid. No valid notice would mean all that followed is not valid...including your appointment and any action you have taken. [emphasis added]
Recent case law that confirms the principle of 'No notice, no Act'. See Kyson and Power v Shah where the surveyors tried to enforce an ultra vires award in pursuit of fees where no valid award had been served.
Out of interest, how much do you think you are entitled to for your work in this matter?
What did you do that was necessary, worthwhile or to the benefit of hte parties?
Of course for you to claim the building owner is responsible for your costs you will have to concede my appointment was valid. Otherwise, you had no role and no work was required.
The adjoining owner cannot be responsible for your costs in any case. Such a claim is obvious nonsense.
Regards
Karmjit
Surveying Team
What makes Coburns Party Wall so special?
Expert Advice: We make complex matters simple.
Proven Success: Thousands of satisfied clients.
Competitive Pricing: Get the best rates with no hidden costs.
Controlled Costs: Proven cost-saving strategies.
🕵️♀️ Behind the Branding: A Closer Look at Coburns Party Wall Ltd
🧑💼 Who Is Coburns Party Wall?
Coburns Party Wall Ltd presents itself as a professional consultancy offering party wall services across multiple UK locations. However, a closer examination reveals that the company is operated solely by Karmjit Grewel, with no publicly listed team members or partners.
Despite using plural language like “we” and “our team,” Companies House records confirm that Grewel is the only director and secretary, and no other surveyors are named on the website or in public filings.
🏢 Virtual Offices, Real Questions
Coburns lists offices in:
Twickenham
Harrow
Walthamstow
Birmingham
These addresses appear to be virtual or serviced offices, commonly used for mail forwarding and business registration. There is no evidence of permanent staffed premises or regional teams. This raises questions about the scale and capacity implied by the website’s branding.
📈 The 10,000+ Awards Claim — Is It Credible?
Coburns claims to have “advised in over 10,000 party wall matters.” While this may include notices, consultations, and informal advice, the implication is that these were formal awards under the Party Wall Act.
Let’s break it down:
If Grewel completed 10,000 awards over 10 years, that’s 1,000 per year.
That equates to 83 per month, or 3–4 per working day.
Each award typically takes 2–6 weeks, depending on complexity, cooperation, and site visits.
For a single surveyor, this volume is extremely high and likely inflated or inclusive of non-award matters. Without a team or support staff, maintaining this output consistently would be implausible.
⚠️ Why It Matters
This analysis is not about discrediting a business—it’s about transparency and accountability. When a company presents itself as a multi-office, multi-surveyor operation with thousands of completed awards, clients deserve to know:
Who is actually doing the work?
Are the claims verifiable?
Is the service capacity aligned with the branding?
No qualifications are shown?
No affiliations with any related organisations i.e RICS, CIOB, P&T, FPWS (my understanding is that his membership of the FPWS was revoked some years ago) However, Coburns Party Wall - Twickenham, Uxbridge, Harrow, slough | about.me states that he is a member!
In the context of the earlier article on procedural failures and litigation involving Karmjit Grewel, these questions become even more pressing.
🧾 Conclusion
Coburns Party Wall Ltd appears to be a one-person operation using virtual offices and ambitious marketing claims. While there is no issue with solo practice, transparency is essential—especially in statutory matters where appointments, awards, and fees carry legal weight.
Clients and stakeholders should be aware of the actual structure behind the branding and ensure that any engagement is based on verifiable credentials and realistic expectations.