HHJ Parfitt changes his mind in Shah v Kyson & Power..

In a case virtually identical to ‘Yamin’ HHJ Parfitt handed down his judgement in March this year, which he concluded by saying ‘…For the reasons I have set out above, in my judgement the claimant is correct essentially for the reasons that Mr Paget so well summarised: no notice, no act. ‘ It should be noted that we, Kyson & Power as Defendants have requested an appeal. Many surveyors I have spoken to believe the judgement was wrong. In essence it removes protection of the legislation from an adjoining owner who does not have the finance to seek damages from a building owner who as sought to run rough-shod over their neighbour and caused damage to their property.

The judgement can be read here Shah v Kyson & Power.

On Thursday 23rd July 2020 the Pyramus & Thisbe Club hosted a webinar presented by

Robin Ainsworth BSc(Hons), Ainsworth Surveying Services Ltd, Party Wall Surveyors & Boundary Consultants, Conifer House, 5 Vernon Avenue Eccles, Manchester M30 0UE, Tel:      0161 789 4194     AinsworthSSL@btinternet.com

The general consensus was that HHJ Parfitt got it wrong.

No Notice - No Act.... Really? The Party Wall etc. Act 1996

Can the Building Owner absolve himself from any liability to compensate an Adjoining Owner for damage basing his defence on the fact that he did not serve a notice? viz 'no notice - no Act'​.

It is often stated that the Act has no teeth, I believe the Act can give a nasty bite if correctly utilised….

http://www.lkbc.co.uk/no-notice-no-act-really

Building owner refuses to acknowledge Party Wall etc. Act 1996

Lee Kyson was contacted by the adjoining owner (AO), in February  2016, as while she was away the neighbouring building owner (BO) had carried out notifiable building works without serving notice and causing damage and trespass of foundations  inter alia to the AO's property.

Having been appointed to act on behalf of the AO, Lee contacted the BO requesting that they appoint a surveyor under section 10(4)b of the 'Act', also offering to act as agreed surveyor.

The BO promptly instructed a solicitor. On expiration of the 10 day notice period Lee sought to appoint a surveyor to act on behalf of the BO. Despite having spoken to several surveyors they did not wish to accept the appointment as it was the AO's surveyor making the appointment. Finally a surveyor accepted the appointment.

This led to a protracted bout of correspondence between the parties. An award was finally served in August 2016 dealing with the damage caused by the BO, compensation to the AO, surveyors fees, legal costs, Arboriculterist's fees....  total £17,000.

Despite continual threats the 'Award' never was appealed.