Reference to FPWS throughout this website refers to the

Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors,

PLEASE NOTE this has nothing to do with First for Party Wall Surveyors with whom I have a very good working relationship.

Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors -

❌ Why I Resigned from the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors (FPWS)

Former FFPWS-grade member

I’m often asked whether I’m a member of the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors (FPWS). The answer is no. While I’ve never been asked the same about the P&T, I feel it’s important to set out why I resigned from the FPWS — because a short phone call never allows the full picture.

🏗️ Background to the Dispute

In 2017, I was appointed by a Building Owner. When the Adjoining Owner’s surveyor failed to act, I served an ex parte Award in February 2018.

• The Award was never appealed.

• Yet that surveyor, David Turner, lodged complaints against me with RICS, CIOB, FPWS, and P&T.

⚖️ RICS: Rejected the complaint outright.
🏛️ FPWS: Upheld the complaint and imposed sanctions.

This was despite the FPWS Professional Standards Department being headed by barrister Mr Stuart Frame at the time.

⚠️ The Issue: “Nearly Doing Something Wrong”

The FPWS Disciplinary Panel took a bizarre approach. In essence, you could be found guilty of almost doing something wrong.

For example:

• If you make a mistake in a draft Award, but correct it before service, the FPWS can still say you’re guilty.

If that logic applied across the Faculty, every member would be guilty.

🧾 Why I Believe the Decision Was Flawed

The FPWS case against me rested on:

• Falsified evidence.

• Assertions by David Turner that I “did not understand what I was doing.”

Yet in County Court, Turner himself admitted my ex parte Award was valid.

👉 Meaning:

• My grounds for proceeding ex parte were correct.

• His complaints to the FPWS were unfounded.

Still, the FPWS Panel upheld his complaint.

⚖️ Unequal Treatment

The most troubling aspect is double standards.

• In my case: the Panel called it a “serious matter” and sanctioned me.

• In Mr Alex Frame’s case (President of the FPWS, father of Stuart Frame): the same issue was not treated as serious. No action.

📌 Selective enforcement undermines fairness, impartiality, and credibility.

🌀 The Paradox of “Switching Off” the Act

The FPWS reasoning mirrors the flawed logic in Power v Shah:

• If a Building Owner has a statutory obligation to serve notice, the Act must be in force.

• Yet if the owner fails to serve that notice, the FPWS view is that the Act “switches off.”

⚠️ This rewards non-compliance, leaving the other party unprotected — the opposite of what Parliament intended.

⚖️ Case Law: Property Supply & Development Ltd v Verity

To highlight inconsistency further, in Property Supply & Development Ltd v Verity (HHJ Bailey, with counsel including Mr Nicholas Isaac and Mr Stuart Frame), the Judge confirmed:

“There is no basis for Mr Frame [Alex] to appoint Mr Campbell. … the addendum award was made only by one validly appointed surveyor … Accordingly … I must declare the addendum award invalid.”

Yet when similar complaints were raised inside the FPWS:

• Against me, sanctions were imposed.

• Against Alex Frame, no breach of the Code was found.

📜 The Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP) Farce

• I supplied David Turner with my CHP.

• The FPWS Panel nevertheless reprimanded me for not sending it in writing, despite their own Code only requiring complaints be raised with the member first.

Meanwhile:

• Alex Frame failed to supply any CHP at all.

• The FPWS Panel found this was not a breach.

⚖️ Same facts, opposite outcomes.

🏃 Why I Resigned

I resigned because the FPWS has:

• Fallen short of its own standards.

• Based decisions on unreliable or falsified evidence.

• Applied rules inconsistently depending on who is involved.

• Punished “near mistakes” even if corrected, while excusing actual breaches for senior members.

Earlier, I had also stepped down as a committee member of the North London Forum (a decision unrelated to the NLF itself, but to Faculty conduct).

By 2019, I resigned formally. After some resistance, the FPWS finally accepted it.

🚪 Closing Thoughts

The FPWS is supposed to uphold professional standards. Instead, my experience shows:

• Bias in how complaints are treated.

• Double standards when senior figures are involved.

• A disciplinary process that punishes even “nearly wrong” conduct while excusing actual breaches.

Until these issues are addressed openly and fairly, the FPWS risks eroding trust — both from within and from the public it claims to serve.

Linked articles to above:

FPWS Disciplinary Process: A Review of Transparency, Fairness, and Impartiality

Review of the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors Disciplinary Panel's Fitness for Purpose

*for example If Mr Alex Frame and a fellow director of the FPWS wrongly selected a third surveyor and the matter leads to a court case then Stuart Frame, in his role as head of professional standards of the FPWS will turn a blind eye. I have extracted paras 29 & 30 from the judgement in

PROPERTY SUPPLY & DEVELOPMENT LTD

-v-

MR GRAHAM VERITY & MRS JULIE VERITY

Counsel for the Claimant: MR NICHOLAS ISAAC

Counsel for the Defendants: MR STUART FRAME

at para 29 & 30 HHJ Bailey (ret) stated in his judgement:

29. I would also add for the sake of completeness that I do not find attractive Mr Frame’s [Stuart] argument that on a replacement appointment being made under s.10(5) the provision in the  sub-section that the replacement surveyor has “the same power and authority” as the originally appointed surveyor necessitates the new pair of the existing surveyor and replacement  surveyor  to  proceed  under  section  10(1)(b)  to  select  a  third  surveyor.    It seems  to  me  that  while  parliament  was  concerned  to  ensure  that  the  replacement surveyor should have the same power and authority as the initial surveyor, parliament  did not provide that the  replacement surveyor should be under the same  obligation as the initial appointee to appoint a third surveyor. There is no basis for assuming that the new pair of existing and replacement surveyors are under the obligation placed on the initial appointees in s 10(1)(b) to select a third surveyor where there is in place a third surveyor validly selected by the initial appointees.30.In  the  circumstances,  I  must  accede to the claimant’s claim.  There was no basis for Mr Frame [Alex] to  appoint  Mr Campbell. 

30. In  the  circumstances  the  addendum  award  was made only by one validly appointed surveyor, the adjoining owners’ surveyor, which is not permissible under any  provision of section 10 of the 1996 Act.  Accordingly, and with no little reluctance, I must declare the addendum award invalid. [emphasis added]

However, if you are Alex Frame, yes you’ve noticed Alex Frame is actually Stuart Frame’s father! and exactly the same complaint has been raised then following applies:-

Alex Frame was the selected third surveyor, LK had served an ex parte Award, subsequently Alex Frame and the other surveyor made an erroneous Award between them’ LK asked for their CHP.

I had in fact supplied David Turner with a CHP but the DP decided

However, Mr Alex Frame did not supply any form of CHP.

What is quite bizarre is that the FPWS Code of Conduct states that you should raise the complaint with the member first, which if you are member then you should know this process and should not have to ask for CHP, however David Turner did not do this he raised the complaint directly with the FPWS. Given that my response to David Turner was to direct his complaint to me in th efirst instance and if he was not happy with my response he could raise his complaint with either the FPWS or RICS. He bypassed the process of the CoC and complained directly to the FPWS. In compliance wth their own CoC should have advised David Turner to refer the complaint back to me first. They did not. I knew the process but only asked for Alex Frame’s CHP to see what would happen and if the FPWS applied double standards - and as we can see they do, even though their Professional Standards is headed up by a specialist party wall barrister.

Earlier this year I resigned my position as a committee member from the North London Forum due to my dissatisfaction with some elements of the Faculty, this was not dissatisfaction with the NLF branch, I hasten to add!, but with some other matters regarding the Faculty and I was going to resign my membership but was persuaded to renew it. I now realise it was an erroneous decision to renew. As stated above, I have since resigned but the FPWS are of the opinion that they will not accept my resignation. Albeit as of February 2019 this has finally been acknowledged.