Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I live in a flat. My downstairs neighbour is having various work done including:

Chimney breast removal (mine would stay)

Internal wall removal (it's a supporting wall and mine is above)

Knocking down of external walls that support mine and adding extension.

He says his surveyor said this doesn't need a party wall survey because we don't share any party walls. Three surveyors I spoke to said the chimney breasts at a minimum do (party structure).

Is there specific law I can quote on this?

And if not, what do I do next?

(Flats are leasehold, he has permission from them for external work, not sure about internal). He doesn't have council planning consent for the chimney or internal walls.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/346309-party-wall-dispute-what-now/
Share on other sites

Chimney breast removal definitely requires party wall agreement and if yours above is not being removed it will require steels to support the chimney breast above.  You should consult your own party wall surveyor and serve notices on your neighbour and they will be liable for the cost of your surveyor.  Also worth contacting the southwark building regs inspector for advice as removing a load bearing wall also requires steels to support the walls above and will require building regs. Has your neighbour shown you the plans to show how they are going to support your walls above?

  • Like 3

He’ll need to apply to building control if he’s removing a chimney breast, as that has to be signed off once the work is done. Make sure the joists for your floor are extended to full width of the room once the chimney breast is removed. Ours weren’t (by the previous owner when they removed the chimney breast in the kitchen) and the floor above was dipping by a few inches. 

Thank you, he's pretty adamant a party wall agreement isn't needed so no chance of getting plans, he's been very cagey about what's being done. I've asked for the specific clause in the Party Wall Act that suggests he doesn't because I'm pretty worried.

Is it just the chimney breasts that would fall under the act? He's insisting the others don't count as party walls.

Sounds like your neighbour is trying to bully you into  to be compliant and stay quiet.  You really don't have any choice but to contact Southwark regarding building alteration planning permission.  But also try to find your own surveyor asap.  It might cost you now.  But if you don't it could well really get expensive and cause issues with any potential selling in the future.  Don't feel bad about standing up for yourself and your future.....

Edited by Happyme5
Typo
  • Like 1

Thank you for the advice. I'm definitely not going to be bullied but it's always tricky when you live next to people and know you still have to deal with them after you go nuclear on them!

I think I'll see what the freeholder says first, they might not be aware of the internal work and it can affect building insurance. 

The council said I could report him so will contact them if all else fails this week, along with my own surveyor.

 

Freeholder is responsible for the structure so should definitely have been cleared.  Almost certain that all leaseholders should also have been served party wall notices.  

Definitely speak to freeholder and surveyor... if that doesn't convince neighbour to comply then an injunction through court is probably the next step

  • Like 1

Thank you, freeholder has given consent to the external extension but I'm not sure about the chimneys or internal walls. Given there's no sign of council approval for the latter two, I suspect not!

 

I am the other leaseholder and I agree, it's bonkers that I'm not. If it comes to it I will try and get the freeholder to make them give me a notice. 

It's usually if your property is adjoining or very close to the property where work is being done. As others have stated, chimney breast removal and structural walls removal definitely require your consent and your neighbour will be responsible for paying your party wall surveyors fees. They probably don't want to pay additional money but that's the law so the law is on your side. It's a safeguard at the end of the day and if you want to quote the law at your neighbour to make them take responsibility I would get a solicitors letter (few hundred pounds but money well spent as property worth a lot and a lot can go wrong with building work so best to cover yourself).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/preventing-and-resolving-disputes-in-relation-to-party-walls/the-party-wall-etc-act-1996-explanatory-booklet you may find useful 

16 minutes ago, Jellybeanz said:

It's usually if your property is adjoining or very close to the property where work is being done. As others have stated, chimney breast removal and structural walls removal definitely require your consent and your neighbour will be responsible for paying your party wall surveyors fees. They probably don't want to pay additional money but that's the law so the law is on your side. It's a safeguard at the end of the day and if you want to quote the law at your neighbour to make them take responsibility I would get a solicitors letter (few hundred pounds but money well spent as property worth a lot and a lot can go wrong with building work so best to cover yourself).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/preventing-and-resolving-disputes-in-relation-to-party-walls/the-party-wall-etc-act-1996-explanatory-booklet you may find useful 

 

The very best advice.   People often use aggressive behaviour to hide their wrong doing.   A solicitors letter will give them a little reminder of what is right.

Are their plans up on the Southwark Planning Portal?

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/

This should show exactly what they are planning to do.

Permitted development doesn't apply to flats. To build an extension to a flat you must apply for planning permission.

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/permission/common-projects/flats-and-maisonettes/extending-ground-floor-flat

Therefore the plans should be there.

 

It is particularly important that you have a survey done before the work commences (which should be paid for by your neighbour) - this allows a 'before and after' picture to identify any issues caused by your neighbour's work - which again must be remedied at his expense. As this all must be paid for by your neighbour (under law) it may be an acceptable risk to commission your own survey (again your right to choose the surveyor although your neighbour can offer his own surveyor or structural engineer, which is normally cheaper for him, if you are prepared to trust that). 

You might additionally, although the surveyor should also do this, photograph any areas in your property you believe may be at risk - new cracks in plasterwork are his responsibility to remedy as well.

Your neighbour is quite wrong to suggest that the work he is intending does not fall into the party wall legislation - and informing both Southwark and the ground landlord of his intentions is a good first step. As others have said, a solicitor's letter to remind him of his legal obligations might be an expense worth bearing. The potential damage to his and your property could be irreparable. Other than choice of surveyor (his or yours) there are no other areas of negotiation - the party wall legislation is surprisingly clear on this, I believe.

Our neighbour had a loft conversion and we signed a party wall agreement - there was no encroachment on our property at all.  

His property is leasehold with Southwark being the freeholder, also the ground floor flat is a Southwark tenancy and they were notified.

I would definitely get building regs involved.

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

It is particularly important that you have a survey done before the work commences (which should be paid for by your neighbour) - this allows a 'before and after' picture to identify any issues caused by your neighbour's work - which again must be remedied at his expense. As this all must be paid for by your neighbour (under law) it may be an acceptable risk to commission your own survey (again your right to choose the surveyor although your neighbour can offer his own surveyor or structural engineer, which is normally cheaper for him, if you are prepared to trust that). 

You might additionally, although the surveyor should also do this, photograph any areas in your property you believe may be at risk - new cracks in plasterwork are his responsibility to remedy as well.

Your neighbour is quite wrong to suggest that the work he is intending does not fall into the party wall legislation - and informing both Southwark and the ground landlord of his intentions is a good first step. As others have said, a solicitor's letter to remind him of his legal obligations might be an expense worth bearing. The potential damage to his and your property could be irreparable. Other than choice of surveyor (his or yours) there are no other areas of negotiation - the party wall legislation is surprisingly clear on this, I believe.

Thank you. Based on what's happened so far, I'd prefer my own surveyor for a totally independent view.

I really just want peace of mind to ensure the work is done properly. It's not in my interest to delay it unnecessarily but ironically, if my neighbour continues down this road, i will delay things further!

 

I'll speak to the council and freeholder on Monday.

 

1 hour ago, Pugwash said:

Our neighbour had a loft conversion and we signed a party wall agreement - there was no encroachment on our property at all.  

His property is leasehold with Southwark being the freeholder, also the ground floor flat is a Southwark tenancy and they were notified.

I would definitely get building regs involved.

Thank you!

Sorry I've been away for a few days! 

The neighbour has finally agreed to provide a notice. I had to quote the goverment website on my texts to him. And I've since spoken to his surveyor. The surveyor said they weren't entirely sure if an agreement was needed due to the way the chimney breasts were being removed but they've checked and they do. Sounds like backtracking to me but at least they're playing ball!

I did also say that if they were removing/cutting internal and external structural walls and adding beams that also counts as party structures (as it affects their ceiling/my floor - so let's see).

Surveyor's coming over to introduce himself tomorrow, a notice will be issued this week and then my surveyor can be appointed.

The freeholder hasn't come back on the building insurance question yet but I chased this week. It's all in writing though.

Thank you all for the help you've provided. I have a feeling this neighbour will cut corners given half the chance so knowing an agreeement will be in place is a huge help.

  • Thanks 1

Brilliant news. It isn't something you should have had to do.  But I am delighted that the neighbour now realises that they can't stonewall (soz) you on the issues.  And I totally agree that their surveyor sounds a bit dodge.  So you and your legal team  will have to keep on top of them.   Brilliant job.  👍🤞👍🤞👍🤞

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...