LIMITATIONS OF THE RICS PARTY WALL ACT GUIDANCE

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) 7th Edition Party Wall legislation and procedure guidance document presents itself as the “professional standard” for its member surveyors, but how well does it actually serve the public? 
​
Here we highlight several areas where it doesn’t fully meet the practical needs of either party wall surveyors or the parties themselves. We also make practical, realistic suggestions for improvement.

Overly generic

Lack of specificity: The award template provided does not cover specific details relevant to individual cases. This can result in important project-specific issues being overlooked, with some surveyors claiming awards need not have any specific details.

Limited adaptability: All but the most experienced party wall surveyors (a surprisingly small number) can find it difficult to apply it to unique or challenging situations because it lacks adaptability.

Complexity

Legal jargon: The guidance often uses unnecessarily technical legal language, which can be difficult for the public to understand.

Lacking detail: Despite being a hefty 68 pages the document actually lacks sufficient detail, making it of limited value for all but the most inexperienced surveyors. 

Missing practical details: Various practical aspects of building work are completely ignored, such as access conditions or specific protective measures related to, for example, chimney breast removal or other common works.

Dispute resolution​​

Impartiality concerns: The parties are often concerned about the perceived impartiality of surveyors, particularly in more contentious cases. The guidance makes no effort to explain how surveyors should act to ensure conflicts of interest are avoided and addressed should they arise.

Surveyor fees

What is reasonable?: There is no reference to what reasonable fees might be, resulting in ambiguity on how a surveyor's fees should be calculated. This omission advantages fee-hungry surveyors seeking excess fees and over time leads to mistrust of the industry.

Cost Allocation

Clarity on costs: The guidance does not address the various scenarios in which the surveyors should allocate costs in different ways, thereby creating a grey area for unscrupulous owners and surveyors to exploit.

​​​Technological Updates

Integration: The award template is not as easy as it could be to adopt. This has led to many surveyors retaining their previous, outdated templates despite 6 years having passed since it was first introduced. 

E-Signatures: There is no reference to electronic signatures which have been in common use for nearly a decade and increase ease of use.

Digital communication and collaboration tools:  There is no reference to the use of digital communication or collaboration tools which are in common use in many other industries.

​​​Public-Friendliness

Guidance Notes: The general nature of the guidance means it is of limited use for individuals without a background in party wall matters ie. the public. Of course, that may be intentional as it is an industry document for the use of the industry.

​Flexibility​

Rigid structure: The one-size-fits-all template adopted by many surveyors doesn’t suit every situation.

Recommendations for improvement

A customised and specific template

Separate the clauses into headed sections for ease of reference and readability.

​Include project-specific clauses in the award template to make it more relevant to each property/situation.

Use simple language

Using jargon-free and unambiguous language to make the guidance more user-friendly for the public and less experienced surveyors.

Enhanced practical guidance

Provide more detailed guidance on practical issues such as access arrangements and protective measures.

Surveyor fees

Provide clear fee guidance with examples of what reasonable fees might be. 

Clearer cost allocation

Offer clearer instructions on how costs should be allocated with examples.

Technological updates

Provide an easily editable award template in a separate word document. 

Include guidance on the use of e-signatures.

Advise on the use of collaborative software tools. Perhaps even develop such a tool for members and their counterparts.

Public-friendly format

Create a more user-friendly version or have supplementary, easy to find, access and understand materials aimed at homeowners and small developers (the public) to help them understand their rights and obligations.

Provide the public with an easy to find, access and understand party wall specific disciplinary process administered by staff who understand the party wall process, so they can take swift and suitable action against members who breach the letter or spirit of the guidance to the detriment of the public and the reputation of the RICS.

A well informed public can help identify and challenge bad surveyors. This in turn will help the RICS can take necessary action quickly and effectively to ensure public confidence in the organisation.

Conclusion

By addressing these observations, the RICS Party Wall Guidance could become more useful and effective, helping to streamline the party wall process and reduce the potential for disputes.
​
Until then it cannot really be described as an authoritative document.