⚖️ Coburns Party Wall: A Misguided Approach to Notices and Costs

📝 Background

Under the guise of Coburns Party Wall, Karmjit Grewel (KG) served a notice on behalf of the Building Owner (BO) on or about 23rd March 2023.

The Adjoining Owner (AO) initially appointed her own surveyor, who later relinquished his role, following which Lee Kyson (LK) was appointed in his place.

KG subsequently advised the AO that the original notice was defective and that a new notice would be served under section 2(2)(b) of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, i.e.:

“…to make good, repair, or demolish and rebuild, a party structure or party fence wall in a case where such work is necessary on account of defect or want of repair of the structure or wall.”

At the same time, KG drew attention to section 11(5) of the Act, which provides that:

“…where work is carried out in exercise of the right mentioned in section 2(2)(b), the expenses shall be defrayed by the building owner and the adjoining owner in such proportion as has regard to – (a) the use which the owners respectively make or may make of the structure or wall concerned; and (b) responsibility for the defect or want of repair concerned, if more than one owner makes use of the structure or wall concerned.”

The intention was clear: KG was seeking to lay a foundation for recovering contributory costs from the AO. A side letter was even issued offering to waive such a claim if the AO would agree to KG acting as the “agreed surveyor”.

📜 The Notice and Its Deficiencies

The notice under section 3 was starkly worded:

“Underpinning the party wall on account of defect.”

LK immediately raised issue with this approach:

  • Underpinning is not authorised by section 2(2)(b). It properly falls under section 2(2)(a) (“to underpin, thicken or raise a party structure”).

  • If the foundation is defective and needs underpinning, that is a section 2(2)(a) notice.

  • Any subsequent repair to the wall itself would then be addressed separately under section 2(2)(b), but only if the wall itself was defective.

It was not disputed that there were cracks within the BO’s property. However:

  • Cracks on the party wall were minimal.

  • The more severe cracks appeared in perpendicular walls, falling under section 6, not under 2(2)(a) or (b).

  • A schedule of condition at the AO’s property found no ground floor party wall damage.

Thus, there was no liability for the AO to contribute under section 11(5)(b).

🧱 Misuse of Section 11

KG sought to rely on section 11(5)(b), suggesting contributory liability. But LK correctly pointed out that if the defect lay in the foundation, section 11(5)(b) was irrelevant. Instead, section 11(5)(a) would apply — and crucially, this route does not allow a BO to recover a contribution for underpinning.

KG had relied heavily on the opinion of a structural engineer who suggested underpinning as a solution to the BO’s internal cracks. Yet that advice did not address the causation or statutory basis for notice, nor did it support any claim for the AO to contribute.

⚖️ Referral to the Third Surveyor

A dispute arose between LK and KG. KG referred the matter to Stephen Cornish (3S).

After consulting a structural engineer, the 3S rejected KG’s referral outright. The outcome left the Building Owner exposed to £3,000 in costs payable to the 3S, without achieving the contribution KG had sought.

💼 Fee Dispute

KG then turned his attention to LK’s time spent on the matter, criticising his timesheet in robust terms:

“…a quick review of this email trail confirms you are intent on wasting time. You are of course at your liberty to waste your own time. However, it demonstrates a lack of professional courtesy…

“…your timesheet doesn’t add up. A spreadsheet is therefore required to allow a proper assessment.”

KG alleged LK’s claimed hours were disproportionate, slow, or unnecessary. Yet this ignored the fact that KG’s own misconceived notice and misguided referral had created the procedural quagmire.

📑 Resolution

Ultimately, nothing further was progressed with KG. No award was concluded under his conduct of the matter. After discussions with LK, the BOs appointed Mr Simon Levy FRICS (Simon Levy Associates), who correctly served notices under sections 2(2)(a) and 6.

An award was then amicably agreed between LK and Simon Levy and then served.

The costs to the BO were considerable:

  • £3,000 to the Third Surveyor,

  • £3,800 for LK’s fees (in fact, well below his actual time incurred),

  • Fees to Simon Levy (undisclosed),

  • Plus whatever may have already been paid to KG.

🚨 Lessons from Coburns Party Wall

  • 📑 Notices must cite the correct section. Underpinning belongs under s.2(2)(a), not s.2(2)(b).

  • 🧱 Cause vs. effect. Foundation defects cause wall cracks; the wall is not “in want of repair” simply because the foundation has failed.

  • 💷 No liability without benefit. Section 11 cannot be stretched to impose AO contributions where underpinning is for the BO’s own stability.

  • ⚖️ Misguided referrals are costly. Here, the BO was saddled with £3,000 in Third Surveyor costs for a rejected referral + LK’s fees.

  • 💼 Surveyors’ professionalism matters. Disparaging remarks about another surveyor’s timesheet don’t disguise a fundamentally flawed approach.

✅ Conclusion

The Coburns Party Wall episode highlights how a misapplied statutory notice, combined with an aggressive attempt to claim contributions, can backfire spectacularly. The BO not only failed to secure AO contributions but incurred heavy additional costs.

For surveyors, the message is clear: accuracy, professionalism, and statutory discipline are paramount. For owners, it is a reminder to be cautious about who represents their interests under the Party Wall etc. Act.