⚖️ Review of the Purported Award by Justin Burns of Peter Barry Surveyors & Alistair Redler of DelvaPatmanRedler
🧠 Overview
The award in question raises serious concerns regarding:
Procedural integrity
Jurisdictional validity
Ethical standards
Professional conduct
Despite being authored by Justin Burns MRICS FFPWS of Peter Barry Surveyors, countersigned by Alistair Redler of DelvaPatmanRedler, and supported in enforcement by Stuart Frame, the award appears to suffer from multiple defects that undermine its legitimacy.
📌 Key Issues Identified
1. Jurisdictional Confusion
The award refers to three appointed surveyors and a third owner’s surveyor, which is conceptually and legally incoherent under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.
The third surveyor is selected, not appointed, and there is no provision for a “third owner.”
The award appears to replace an ex parte award served on 31 October, yet references a date of “312 August,” which is nonsensical.
2. Duplicated Clauses and Terminology
The presence of two clause 8s suggests poor drafting and lack of editorial oversight.
The use of the term “costs” to describe surveyors’ fees is misleading. Costs typically refer to expenditure incurred, not professional charges.
3. Fee Discrepancies
JB’s fees fluctuated from £1,660.50 + VAT to £1,200 + VAT without clear justification.
The hourly rates of £205 (JB) and £275 (AR) are high and should be scrutinised for proportionality and necessity.
4. Ethical Concerns
JB accepted an appointment from an elderly lady with dementia, raising serious questions about capacity and informed consent.
No evidence is provided of a power of attorney or appropriate legal authority to act on her behalf.
5. Enforcement in Magistrates Court
JB sought enforcement of the award in Westminster Magistrates Court, where the BO (a pensioner) had to represent herself.
JB objected to an adjournment that would have allowed her to be supported, which may be seen as adversarial and disproportionate.
📚 Case Law & Professional Standards
🔍 Ash v Trimnell-Ritchard [2020]
HHJ Parfitt set aside an award for failing to determine actual rights and for including prejudicial assumptions.
The judge stated:
“Nobody in a quasi-judicial role should determine such an essential matter against a person either without allowing them to be heard or by simply assuming it against them without evidence.”
🔍 Gyle-Thompson v Wall Street (Properties) Ltd [1974]
Surveyors acting without valid written appointment were found to lack statutory authority.
Backdated LoAs and procedural shortcuts were condemned.
🔍 Amir-Siddique v Kowaliw [2018]
The court apportioned costs against the AO due to unreasonable conduct and failure to engage constructively.
🧭 Commentary on Professional Conduct
Stuart Frame, as Head of Professional Standards for the FPWS, is expected to uphold the highest standards. His support of this award, despite its flaws, raises questions about consistency in enforcement of the FPWS Code of Conduct.
Justin Burns, a Fellow of the FPWS, should be held to exemplary standards. The errors and ethical concerns in this matter suggest a need for review by the Faculty’s disciplinary panel
A ‘purported award’ made by Justin Burns & Alistair Redler.
I was more than surprised, stunned in fact, to see the very low standard set by this purported award, given that it was authored by Justin Burns, checked and countersigned by Alistair Redler and then read through by Stuart Frame, the well known barrister specialising in party wall matters, who assisted Justin Burns in commencing recovery of the purported fees in the Magistrates Court! We are all prone to making mistakes however…..
Among party wall surveyors and many building owners, Justin Burns BSc (Hons) MRICS FFPWS of Peter Barry Surveyors Ltd [JB] is well known for his methods of procuring work. In this instance he procured an appointment from the adjoining owner [AO], by his own admission, apparently, an old lady with dementia who lives alone. Having received correspondence from Peter Barry, the building owner [BO] asked if he [JB] could be the agreed surveyor. He refused. The BO then appointed me and I raised the issue of why he wouldn’t act as agreed surveyor. I brought up the case of Amir-Siddique v Kowaliw - a case in which the BO’s costs were apportioned against the AO. He then came back to me and said that following a discussion with his appointing owner she was prepared to concur in him acting as agreed surveyor, if I deemed myself incapable. I was not incapable* [see footnote -Stuart Frame declared himself incapable in another matter as 3S], therefore, could see no reason how I could deem myself incapable. On 31st October 2020 I served an ex parte award, which was not appealed and was accepted by both owners. The ex parte award dealt with JB’s fees. JB then made a referral to Alistair Redler [AR] the selected third surveyor and between them they served the purported award, shown below, on 10th November 2020. I believe this was after the works were well underway. The purported award was identical to the ex parte award with the exception that it made provision for ‘costs’ for JB and AR and had erroneous amendments. JB subsequently sent the BO an invoice which the BO did not pay.
Justin Burns BSc (Hons) MRICS FFPWS of Peter Barry Surveyors Ltd then sought to enforce his ‘costs’ (?) and the “Third Owner's Surveyor's” costs as agreed with Alistair Redler against the BO in the Westminster Magistrates Court. The BO is a pensioner who had no choice but to represent herself in court. I had requested an adjournment in order to assist her but JB vehemently objected to this, not wanting me to be there.
What I find rather bizarre about this purported award supported by Stuart Frame, is that it appertains to:
‘replace’ an ex parte award that was apparently ‘issued’ on 312 August. The ex parte award was served on 31st October!.. and was not appealed.
have 3 appointed surveyors. -the third surveyor is selected, not appointed.
have a third owner’s surveyor. -who is the ‘third owner’? there were only two parties to the matter; and who is the unnamed surveyor?
an adjoining owner’s surveyor who claims to have £1200 + VAT ‘costs’.
Justin Burns' ‘fees’ when in discussion with me had risen to £1660.50 + VAT yet he reduced them to £1200 + VAT when he called upon the 3S.
There are 2 clause 8s.
The fees being charged for the above were based upon £205 (JB) & £275 (AR) + VAT per hour.
Justin Burns instructed Stuart Frame, a barrister, under direct access who subsequently wrote to the BO, his correspondence clearly supporting this purported award made by JB and AR.
Stuart Frame’s correspondence to the BO confirms he has read the email trail and obviously the ex parte award and the subsequent purported award. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say that Stuart Frame [SF] must believe that there are three appointed surveyors, a third owner’s surveyor, it is OK to have 2 clause 8s, that an ex parte award was served on 312 August and Justin Burns incurred(?) costs of £1200 + VAT - my understanding of costs is that they are an expenditure incurred and fees are chargeable - someone correct me if I am wrong. I’m not sure if anyone reading this will be presenting ‘costs’ as their ‘fees’ when submitting their accounts.
Stuart Frame charged Justin Burns £1200 + VAT for his correspondence, the court reduced this by 50%.
It is worthy of note that Stuart Frame* is the head of professional standards for the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors. I’ve seen membership applications rejected for less than the errors above. Justin Burns is a ‘Fellow’ of the FPWS. Is this the new benchmark JB and SF have set as the standard required to be a ‘Fellow’ member of the FPWS?
JB produced the initial draft award, however, the ex parte award and the subsequent purported award are very different to JB’s original draft award. Following service of the ex parte Award JB put forward his proposed amendments to the award. Once he realised that an ex parte award had been served, he put forward the same proposals to AR. AR rejected the proposals and adopted the ex parte award subject to the amendments cited above. Apart from a couple of minor amendments i.e. three appointed surveyors, a third owner and ‘costs’ for Justin Burns the award is identical to the ex parte award. The purported award also makes provision for JB to carry out a final inspection, in essence, to be paid for before the works started. Despite the works being finished for quite some time, I am not aware of any such inspection having being carried out.
What I find more disconcerting, as stated above, is JB’s statement to AR
‘Not only was the award served by Lee invalid but the method of service was also invalid being pushed through the adjoining owner’s letterbox on a Saturday night. My appointing owner is an elderly lady with dementia living on her own so I'm sure you'll appreciate Lee’s actions have caused some confusion.’
JB accepted an appointment from someone who has dementia and acted on her behalf. Is this ethical and is such an appointment valid? Had I been in his position, (and I have been) I would have (and did seek) sought to deal with someone with power of attorney in such circumstances.
The owners’ names and addresses have been redacted in the cover letter and award shown below.
*Stuart Frame made a third surveyor award in which he decided matters that were not in dispute and subsequently provided a signed and dated 'draft Amended TS Award', the 1st award was arguably (on Stuart Frame's own assertions) invalidly served. see from this link
A point to bear in mind is that Stuart Frame is head of professional standards for the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors.
Party Wall Award
Relating to Properties:
140 & 142 Abbs Cross Lane
Hornchurch
RM12 4XR
AN AWARD under the provisions of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.
WHEREAS Elizabeth Ann Smith of 140 Abbs Cross Lane, Hornchurch, RM12 4XR (‘the building owner’) is an owner within the meaning of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (‘the Act’) of the premises known as 140 Abbs Cross Lane, Hornchurch, RM12 4XR (‘the building owner's property’).
AND Elizabeth Macfarlane of 142 Abbs Cross Lane, Hornchurch, RM12 4XR (‘the adjoining owner’) is an owner within the meaning of the Act of the premises known as 142 Abbs Cross Lane, Hornchurch, RM12 4XR (‘the adjoining owner's property’).
AND on 4th May 2020 the building owner served notice on the adjoining owner in respect of rights provided by section 2 of the Act of her intention to execute the building works described therein between the building owner's property and the adjoining owner's property (‘the two properties’).
AND a deemed dispute has arisen between the building owner and the adjoining owner
(hereinafter together called ‘the parties’) within the meaning of the Act.
AND, the adjoining owner having declined a request for her surveyor to act as the agreed surveyor, the building owner has appointed Lee Kyson MSc. (Construction Law & DR), FCIArb, MCIOB, AssocRICS of Lee Kyson Building Consultancy Ltd, 59 Derham Gardens, Upminster, RM14 3HB (‘the building owner's surveyor’) to act as her surveyor and the adjoining owner has appointed Justin Burns BSc (Hons) MRICS FFPWS of Peter Barry Surveyors, Vicarage House, 58-60 Kensington Church Street, London, W8 4DB (‘the adjoining owner's surveyor’) to act as her surveyor.
AND the building owner's surveyor and the adjoining owner's surveyor (‘the two surveyors’) have selected Alistair Redler BSc FRICS of Delva Patman Redler LLP, Thavies Inn House, 3-4 Holborn Circus, London, EC1N 2HA to act as third surveyor in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
This award and its conditions relate only to the works described in clause 2 of this award and do not relate to other works outside the scope of the Act.
That nothing in this award shall be held as conferring, admitting or affecting any easement of light or other easement in or relating to the party wall.
The adjoining premises having been inspected by the surveyor appointed by the adjoining owner, we the undersigned, being two of the three appointed surveyors, and having considered the proposals made by the building owner and any other relevant matters brought to our attention but without prejudice to any other rights of the parties or of any other persons DO HEREBY MAKE THIS OUR AWARD.
1. a) That the wall separating the two properties is a party wall within the meaning of the Act.
b) That the party wall and the parts of the adjoining owner's property described in the attached schedule of condition are sufficient for the present purposes of the adjoining owner.
c) A schedule of condition dated 3rd August 2020 prepared on behalf of the adjoining owner by the surveyor appointed by the adjoining owner, is
attached hereto as a record of fact and relates to the adjacent parts of the adjoining owner's premises prior to the execution of the said work so far as
can be ascertained without opening up or disturbing the structure or finishings.
d) That the following documents, attached hereto, form part of this award:
• Drawings numbered 2518-02-02 Rev 0 and 2518-02-03 Rev 0 by
Imperium Engineers
• Schedule of condition dated 3rd August 2020
2. That after the service of the signed award the building owner shall be at liberty, but shall be under no obligation, to carry out the following works:
a) Cut pockets into no more than half the thickness of the party wall to allow for the insertion of 3 steel beams and their associated padstones.
b) Temporarily expose the party wall during the re-tiling of the roof.
3. That no deviation from the works shall be made without the prior written agreement of the owners, or surveyors acting on their behalf and with their
express authority, or in the event of a dispute determined by the appointed surveyors in accordance with section 10.
4. That if the building owner carries out the works she shall:
a) Execute the whole of the works and do so at the sole cost of the building owner.
b) Take all reasonable precautions and provide all necessary support to retain the land and buildings comprised within the adjoining owner's property.
c) Ensure that the party wall is adequately protected from the elements should it be exposed during the process of carrying out any works.
d) Make good all structural or decorative damage to the adjoining owner's property occasioned by the works in materials to match the existing fabric
and finishes, to the reasonable satisfaction of the two surveyors, with such making good to be executed upon completion of the works, or at any earlier
time deemed appropriate by the two surveyors. If so required by the adjoining owner make payment in lieu of carrying out the work to make the
damage good, with such sum to be agreed between the owners or in the event of the owners not being able to reach agreement determined in
accordance with section 10.
e) Compensate any adjoining owner and any adjoining occupier for any loss or damage which may result to any of them by reason of any work executed
in pursuance of this Act.
f) Permit the adjoining owner's surveyor to have access to the relevant parts of the building owner's property at all reasonable times during, and to inspect,
the progress of the works if necessary.
g) Restrict noisy works to which this award relates to between the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays excepting
Sundays, Bank Holidays and Public Holidays when no work to which this award relates shall be carried out.
h) Clear away any dust and debris from time to time as necessary, or when agreed by the surveyors.
5. That the building owner's surveyor shall be permitted access to the relevant parts of the adjoining owner's property from time to time during, and to inspect, the progress of the works at reasonable times and after giving reasonable notice.
6. That the whole of the works shall be executed in accordance with the Building Regulations, and all requirements and by-laws of statutory authorities where these apply and shall be executed in a proper and workman-like manner in sound and suitable materials in accordance with the terms of this award to the reasonable satisfaction of the surveyors.
7. That the scaffold shall have a cantilevered section of approximately 1.00m at eaves level as a protective measure for both the workers and the adjoining
owner’s property while carrying out works associated with exposing and recovering the party wall.
8. That the works shall be carried through with reasonable expedition after commencement and so as to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the adjoining
owner or occupiers.
8. That the building owner shall immediately on the service of this award pay the adjoining owner's surveyor’s costs in the sum of £1,200 plus VAT (£1,440) in connection with the obtaining and making of this award, and 1 subsequent inspection of the works. In the event of further disputes arising, further fees shall be payable to be determined by the surveyors.
9. That the building owner shall immediately on the service of this award pay the third owner's surveyor’s costs in the sum of £295 plus VAT (£354) in connection with the obtaining and making of this award.
10. That the said surveyors reserve the right to make and serve any further award or awards that may be necessary, as provided in the Act.
11. That the building owner's authority to carry out the works under this award is conditional upon the works being commenced within 12 months from the date of this award.
12. That either of the parties to the dispute may within 14 days from the date this award is served upon them appeal to the county court against this award.
WHEREOF we have set our hands this 10th day of November Two Thousand and Twenty.
Third Surveyor
Alistair Redler BSc FRICS
Surveyor to the adjoining owner Justin Burns BSc (Hons) MRICS FFPWS
*In a party wall matter 2019/2020 Stuart Frame was selected as the third surveyor. He made an award following a referral to him by the adjoining owner’s surveyor. I pointed out several erroneous parts of the award and the BO appealed the award i.e. he decided matters, by his own admission, that were not referred to him. SF subsequently ‘served’ a signed and dated amended ‘draft addendum award’ after he had served his 1st award. He then wrote to all concerned…‘This is to advise you all that in accordance with section 10(9)(c) of the 1996 Act I am deeming myself incapable of acting as the third surveyor in the above matter, and that I do so by virtue of this email to you all.’ I’m not quite sure how you can deem yourself incapable ‘in accordance with section 10(9)c’. 10(9)c …dies, or becomes or deems himself incapable of acting, before the dispute is settled, Nonetheless, my understanding is that a barrister specialising in party wall matters and head of professional Standards for the FPWS declared that he was incapable after he had made his purported award, despite the requirement of 10(9)c being ‘….before the dispute is settled.’