When Surveyor Fees Go Too Far: A Lesson from a Third Surveyor’s Award
Andrew Schofield, an adjoining owner's surveyor, has been found by the third surveyor, Alan Bright, to have been greedy in his billing practices. Schofield, who operates out of a Central London practice, charged high hourly rates of £300 for himself and £240 for his colleague, Stephen Parker. Despite the Building Owner's appointed surveyor, Lee Kyson, stating that the project was a simple domestic matter, Schofield claimed a total of £4,005 plus VAT for his and Parker's time. This amount was based on 6.25 hours of work by Schofield and 7 hours by Parker.
⚖️ Background
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 exists to resolve disputes fairly and efficiently. Surveyors appointed under the Act must act impartially, reasonably, and with a duty to control costs.
Recently, a Third Surveyor (3S), Alan Bright was required to decide a dispute over surveyor’s fees, namely, Andrew Schofield of Schofield Surveyors. The caward provides a clear warning about excessive charging and contradictory conduct.
💰 The Inflated Fee Claim
The Adjoining Owner’s Surveyor (AS) presented a bill of £4,005.
This figure was grossly disproportionate to the modest works involved.
Comparable case law (Henshall v Porter; Patel v Peters) makes clear that surveyors’ fees must reflect the scale and complexity of the matter — which this did not.
📈 Signs of Padding and Duplication
A review of the AS’s timesheet revealed:
Clerical tasks billed at professional rates.
Duplication of work between the surveyor and assistant.
Block entries such as “considering” and “liaising” that lacked transparency.
Such charging methods give the appearance of padding fees rather than managing the case efficiently.
🚫 Delegation Without Accountability
Legal authorities (e.g., Maycox v Curtis; Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital) confirm that statutory surveyor duties cannot be delegated and then billed at premium rates.
Yet this approach was adopted here, undermining the AS’s responsibility under the Act.
⚡ Escalation Through Fees
Crucially, the dispute would never have reached the Third Surveyor but for the inflated charges.
The escalation was unnecessary.
It prolonged the process and increased costs for the Building Owner.
🗣️ A Contradictory Position
Perhaps the most revealing moment came when the AS signed an Award in agreement with Building Owner’s Surveyor (Lee Kyson) but later remarked in his submission to 3S that he “. I did not like it then and I still don’t! ”.
Signing indicates agreement that an Award is correct and binding.
To then disown it is contradictory and undermines the finality of the statutory process.
Surveyors are not required to “like” an Award — only to make one that is fair, reasonable, and lawful.
In Ash v Trimmell HHJ Parfitt stated about an Award made by Andrew Schofield and Stuart Birrell ‘…the Award is bad…’ see comments Andrew Schofield may have liked his own award but HHJ Parfitt certainly didn’t!
📉 Impact on the Building Owner
The result was that the Building Owner faced:
Unnecessary expense,
Prolonged conflict, and
Stress that the Act is designed to avoid.
The AS’s conduct added complexity instead of resolving it — the opposite of the surveyor’s statutory duty.
🧭 Key Takeaways
Surveyors must act with reasonableness and consistency.
Excessive charging will not survive scrutiny.
Signing an Award while later claiming not to “like” it is both contradictory and unprofessional.
The Third Surveyor’s Award confirms that Building Owners are not powerless against unreasonable surveyor fees.
👉 Conclusion:
This case is a reminder that greed in surveyor fees undermines the spirit of the Party Wall Act. Building Owners should not hesitate to challenge excessive claims and rely on established principles of proportionality and fairness.
Slightly more insight to the above read here
Did Andrew Schofield like his award in Ash v Trimmell? HHJ Parfitt certainly didn’t. a few comments