⚖️ Tremlett Grove Third Surveyor’s Award: Misapplied Notice & Cost Contribution

📝 Background

At 10 & 12 Tremlett Grove, the Building Owner served notice under section 2(2)(b) of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, claiming the party wall was “in want of repair” and required underpinning.

  • Building Owner’s Surveyor (BOS): Karmjit Grewel

  • Adjoining Owner’s Surveyor (AOS): Lee Kyson

  • Third Surveyor (3S): [Named in Award]

The Adjoining Owner disputed liability to contribute to the underpinning. Mr Karmjit Grewel (BOS) then made the referral to the Third Surveyor under section 10(11) for determination.

📜 Extracts from the Award

“In his submission Mr Grewal confirmed the proposed work: ‘It is intended to repair (by underpinning) the party wall as it is in want of repair.’ Mr Grewal informed me: ‘This claim is supported by the project engineers (Price & Myers) who have been engaged in this matter for some 20 years for multiple owners of the BO’s property. Their recent letter is attached.’”

“As the (party) wall is in want of repair, and as advised by the project engineer (following investigative work) the existing foundation is inadequate, the BOs seek to share the costs of undertaking the necessary remedial work as permitted by section 11 of the Act. However, the AO disagrees… For example, despite the engineer’s view being apparently quite clear, he doesn’t acknowledge underpinning is necessary ‘from the AO’s perspective’.”

⚔️ Commentary

1. Notice Served Under the Wrong Section 📑

The BOS relied on section 2(2)(b) (repairing a defective party wall). However, underpinning is not a repair of the wall — it is expressly authorised under section 2(2)(a), which permits underpinning, thickening, or raising a party structure.

By mischaracterising underpinning as a “repair,” the BOS attempted to create a cost-sharing obligation under section 11. But the defect identified was in the foundation, not the wall.

2. Foundation vs. Party Wall 🧱

Any cracking or movement in a party wall is usually a consequence of defective foundations. The wall is the casualty, not the defect. Proper statutory process would be:

  • Serve a notice under s.2(2)(a) for underpinning the foundation.

  • Only then, if required, serve a s.2(2)(b) notice to repair any damage to the wall itself.

3. Contribution Under Section 11 💷

Section 11 obliges adjoining owners to contribute only where:

  • the party wall itself is defective or out of repair, and

  • both owners benefit from the works.

Here:

  • The defect was in the foundation, not the wall.

  • The works primarily served the Building Owner’s stability and improvement.

  • Therefore, the AO was not obliged to contribute.

This aligns with Nutt v Podger [2021], where contribution was refused unless the adjoining property truly benefitted.

4. Fees Award 💼

The Third Surveyor also addressed surveyors’ fees.

  • Mr Grewel’s application for his fees was rejected.

  • Mr Kyson was awarded his reasonable fees for preparing and presenting his submission.

This outcome reinforces the principle that costs must be proportionate and justified, and that a flawed referral cannot be used to shift unnecessary expense onto another party.

5. Surveyor’s Role ⚖️

Surveyors must ensure notices are served under the correct statutory footing. A misapplied notice risks:

  • undermining jurisdiction, and

  • imposing unfair costs on adjoining owners.

✅ Conclusion

The Tremlett Grove award demonstrates why precision in notice drafting matters.

  • Underpinning belongs under s.2(2)(a), not s.2(2)(b).

  • A “defective foundation” cannot be dressed up as a “defective party wall.”

  • Adjoining Owners cannot be compelled to contribute to works that primarily benefit the Building Owner.

  • Fee claims must be proportionate — here, Mr Grewel’s application was rejected, while Mr Kyson was awarded his reasonable fees.

For Building Owners: accuracy in notices and evidence of shared benefit is essential.
For Adjoining Owners: this case confirms the Act protects against being saddled with costs for works that are not truly mutual.

📦 Lessons Learned (at a glance)

  • 📑 Check the Section — Underpinning notices must be served under s.2(2)(a), not s.2(2)(b).

  • 🧱 Cause vs. Effect — Cracks in a party wall usually result from defective foundations; the wall itself is not the “defect.”

  • 💷 Cost Contribution is Limited — Adjoining Owners only pay where the wall itself is defective and they share in the benefit.

  • 💼 Fee Applications Scrutinised — Unjustified fee claims may be rejected; reasonable submissions will be recoverable.

  • ⚖️ Surveyors’ Duty — Accuracy in notices protects jurisdiction and prevents unfair cost-shifting.