Our Commitment to Reasonable Party Wall Fees and Impartial Service
posted 10th December 2025
When you appoint a party wall surveyor, you are placing a great deal of trust in a professional who will make decisions that bind you in law and in cost. We take that responsibility seriously. One of the most important parts of that duty is ensuring that all fees – ours and those of any adjoining owner’s surveyor – are genuinely reasonable.
This page sets out our policy on fees and how we apply the principle of “reasonable costs” in day-to-day practice under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.
What “reasonable fees” means in practice
Under the Act, building owners are usually responsible for paying the reasonable costs of making an award, including the adjoining owner’s surveyor’s fees. “Reasonable” is not a vague aspiration; it has real, practical consequences.
For us, “reasonable fees” means:
• Proportionate to the project – smaller, lower-risk residential works should attract modest fees; complex basement schemes or heavily engineered projects will naturally require more input.
• Linked to work actually done – fees must fairly reflect the time and expertise genuinely required, not simply what “the market will bear”.
• Transparent and explainable – if we cannot explain a fee to a client in clear language, it is not drafted properly.
We do not believe in “ransom” fees, nor in allowing costs to spiral simply because one party feels they can exploit the other’s timetable.
Clear fee structures from the outset
When we are appointed, whether by a building owner or adjoining owner, we will always:
1. Set out our fee basis in writing
We explain:
- Our hourly rate(s)
- How site visits, travel and administration are charged
- Whether any fixed-fee elements apply (for example, a standard fee for a straightforward residential award)
2. Give a realistic indication of total cost
Based on the nature and complexity of the work, we provide a sensible range of likely overall costs. This is not a quotation in the strict sense, but it allows our clients to plan.
3. Explain what could increase (or reduce) fees
For example:
- Significant design changes mid-process
- Extensive damage claims and further awards
- Late information or persistent non-engagement by a party
4. Setting expectations early is the simplest way to avoid surprises later.
Acting as the Agreed Surveyor – efficient and impartial
In many cases, both the building owner and the adjoining owner are content to appoint us as the agreed surveyor. We actively encourage this where it is appropriate, because it often offers the most efficient and cost-effective route for everyone involved.
When acting as the agreed surveyor:
• There is one surveyor instead of two, avoiding duplication of time and fees.
• Communication tends to be more streamlined, which helps the process move forward smoothly.
• Both owners share a single, impartial professional whose duty is to the proper administration of the Act, not to “fight their corner”.
We see this role as being much closer to that of a building control officer or planning case officer than to a traditional “hired gun” expert. In other words:
• We are carrying out a statutory duty, conferred by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.
• Our obligation is to apply the Act fairly and consistently, having proper regard to the rights of both owners.
• We act independently of either party, in the same way that a building control surveyor or planning officer acts independently when applying the Building Regulations or planning policy.
When we propose the agreed surveyor route, we always explain this clearly to both owners. The intention is not to “sign them up” to our firm, but to offer a practical, fair and economical solution in line with the spirit of the legislation.
How we deal with adjoining owners’ fees
Where separate surveyors are appointed and we act for the building owner, we often have to review and agree the adjoining owner’s surveyor’s fees. Our approach is consistent and rooted in the same reasonable-fee principle.
1. We require a proper breakdown
We expect the adjoining owner’s surveyor to provide:
• A clear hourly rate
• A time sheet showing:
o Date of each item of work
o Nature of the task (for example, “review of drawings”, “site inspection”, “drafting award”)
o Time spent on each entry
This is not about micro-managing a colleague’s practice; it is simply ensuring that our building owner client is only asked to pay what is properly due under the Act.
2. We test fees against the work and the project
We ask ourselves:
• Is the time claimed consistent with:
o The number and complexity of drawings?
o The number of site visits actually undertaken?
o The volume of correspondence?
•
• Are there items which appear to be:
o Duplicated?
o Excessive (for example, several hours for a short, standard award)?
o Outside the scope of the Act (for example, time spent on general legal threats or unrelated disputes)?
•
Where we consider a fee to be higher than is reasonable, we will say so. We will propose an alternative figure that we can support, and we will explain why.
3. We do not “agree now, argue later”
We do not recommend agreeing inflated fees simply to “get the award out” and suggesting to the client that they appeal or challenge them afterwards. That approach undermines the purpose of the Act and places the building owner in an unnecessarily difficult position.
If we cannot agree a reasonable fee with the adjoining owner’s surveyor, we will either:
• Seek a sensible compromise that still falls within a reasonable range; or
• Refer the fee dispute to the third surveyor for determination, as the Act allows.
Our client will be kept fully informed of our advice and the options at every stage.
Independence and duty – even when it is uncomfortable
Under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, a surveyor’s duty is not to the party who has appointed them, but to act impartially in administering the Act.
For fees, this means:
• When acting for a building owner, we will not simply accept any figure presented, nor will we automatically resist an adjoining owner’s surveyor’s fees. We will assess them fairly.
• When acting for an adjoining owner, we will keep our own fees to what is necessary and reasonable, and we will provide a clear breakdown to support them.
• When acting as the agreed surveyor, we will apply the same test to all surveyors’ fees, including our own.
There are occasions where this may mean telling a client that a fee they dislike is, in our view, reasonable and should properly be paid. Equally, there are times when we must push back firmly on a colleague’s fee request, even if this risks awkward conversations. That is part of doing the job properly and honouring the statutory role we have accepted.
Transparency with our clients
Clients are entitled to understand what they are paying for. As part of our reasonable fees policy:
• We explain our invoices in clear, straightforward language.
• We are happy to talk through each item of work if asked.
• Where we are challenging another surveyor’s fees on your behalf, we will show you:
o Their breakdown
o Our analysis
o The figure we consider to be reasonable and why
•
If a matter proceeds to the third surveyor for a decision on fees, we will present a clear, measured submission on your behalf, focused on facts rather than personalities.
Proportionality, value and good outcomes
Reasonableness is not just about numbers on a page. It is also about the value you receive.
We aim to provide:
• Proper technical scrutiny of drawings and proposals, identifying risks and ensuring that reasonable protections for owners are built into the award.
• Clear and workable awards, avoiding vague or unbuildable conditions that lead to disputes on site.
• Practical schedules of condition, recorded carefully so that genuine damage is distinguished from pre-existing defects.
Our view is simple: if surveyors carry out their role carefully and efficiently, party wall procedures should not feel like an expensive luxury. They should feel like a sensible and proportionate safeguard, much like the oversight provided by building control or the planning authority.
A culture of fairness
From time to time, party wall procedures attract criticism for perceived “fee-chasing” and unnecessary complication. We do not subscribe to that culture.
Instead, we commit to:
• Charging fairly for the work we actually do.
• Challenging excessive or unjustified fees where they arise.
• Being open with clients about costs at every stage.
• Encouraging the use of the agreed surveyor route where appropriate, to reduce duplication and overall cost.
• Upholding both the letter and the spirit of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, and treating our role as a genuine statutory duty, comparable in ethos to that of building control or planning officers.
If you are considering works that may fall under the Act, or if you are an adjoining owner who has received a notice and is concerned about potential costs, we would be pleased to discuss the likely fees and how our reasonable-fees policy and agreed surveyor approach may assist in your particular case.
