The failure of the ‘agreed surveyor’ appointment

The Failure of the “Agreed Surveyor” Appointment: When Good Intentions Go Wrong

When planning a construction project near a shared wall, the term “agreed surveyor” often comes up as a promising, efficient solution. The idea is straightforward: instead of each party appointing their own surveyor, both neighbours agree on a single, impartial expert who represents both sides. Simple, cost-effective, and efficient, right? Well, not always.

In theory, appointing an agreed surveyor should streamline the process, reduce costs, and help avoid the misunderstandings that can crop up with multiple surveyors in the mix. But in practice, the agreed surveyor appointment sometimes falls short of these expectations, leading to disputes, communication breakdowns, and, ultimately, failed agreements. Here’s why this well-intentioned concept doesn’t always work as planned and what can go wrong when an agreed surveyor appointment fails.

Misalignment of Expectations

One of the most common issues with an agreed surveyor appointment is a lack of clear, aligned expectations from the start. Both the building owner (the party doing the work) and the adjoining owner (the neighbour affected by it) may agree on a surveyor, but often, they have very different understandings of what that surveyor’s role will be.

In reality, the agreed surveyor’s duty is to act impartially, focusing on compliance with the Party Wall Act and the protection of both properties. Yet, the building owner might expect the surveyor to lean slightly in their favor since they’re the one funding the survey. The adjoining owner, on the other hand, might assume the surveyor will offer extra protective measures on their behalf. These differing assumptions can lead to dissatisfaction from both parties once the surveyor starts making impartial decisions that don’t fully satisfy either side.

The Struggle for True Impartiality

In a perfect world, an agreed surveyor can maintain true impartiality, but in practice, this neutrality is often questioned—especially when the building owner is the one footing the bill. The adjoining owner might feel that the surveyor’s judgment could be influenced by financial dependence on the building owner, leading to concerns that their interests are being underrepresented. Even if the surveyor operates with complete impartiality, the perception of bias can be difficult to shake, especially if disagreements arise over the work or protective measures.

This struggle for perceived impartiality often means that, ironically, the very goal of appointing an agreed surveyor—to simplify and reduce potential conflicts—can end up backfiring, heightening tensions and mistrust instead of building confidence.

Communication Breakdowns and Delays

Communication is a critical part of any construction project, but with an agreed surveyor, it can become a sticking point. Since the surveyor is juggling the interests of two parties, managing communications fairly and transparently can be challenging. When both parties need constant updates, minor misunderstandings can quickly turn into major frustrations. Without the buffer of separate surveyors who can directly represent their clients’ needs, each party might feel they’re not getting the full picture, leading to unnecessary delays and, sometimes, escalated disagreements.

Even simple decisions, such as setting the start date or arranging site inspections, can become complex with an agreed surveyor, especially if both parties aren’t clear on the plan. Delays due to miscommunication can derail timelines and cost more in the long run, essentially negating the initial goal of efficiency.

Disputes Over the Party Wall Award

The Party Wall Award—the official document that outlines the terms under which the building work can proceed—can be another point of contention. When an agreed surveyor drafts this award, they make judgment calls on terms that protect both parties. However, either party may feel the award leans too far in favor of the other, leading to potential disputes and even appeals.

Since both parties have to accept the terms laid out by a single surveyor, there’s a higher chance of dissatisfaction with the final award. This is particularly true if one party feels their concerns weren’t fully addressed. The result? More time, more hassle, and often more expense if appeals or revisions are needed.

What’s the Alternative?

If the agreed surveyor approach is failing to deliver on its promises, is there a better way? In cases where the relationship between the building owner and adjoining owner is strained or there’s a high level of complexity in the project, appointing separate surveyors may actually be the better choice. With each party represented by their own surveyor, there’s a clearer line of communication, and both owners can feel confident that their unique interests are being fully represented.

While appointing separate surveyors is more costly upfront, the additional expense can sometimes save time, energy, and money by reducing misunderstandings and disputes down the line. Separate surveyors can negotiate on behalf of their clients and come to an agreement through a third-party “third surveyor” if conflicts persist, which provides an additional layer of protection for both parties.

Final Thoughts

The agreed surveyor approach can work smoothly in cases where both parties are truly aligned and where the work is relatively straightforward. But for more complex projects or where there’s potential for disagreement, it often pays to take a closer look at whether an agreed surveyor is truly the best option.

Ultimately, the agreed surveyor appointment is a tool designed to streamline and simplify, but as with any tool, it’s most effective when used in the right circumstances. By understanding both the benefits and potential pitfalls of the agreed surveyor approach, property owners can make more informed choices that lead to smoother, more successful projects with less risk of disputes.