Assessing the RICS Party Wall Act Guidance: Areas for Enhancement

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) 7th Edition guidance on Party Wall legislation and procedures positions itself as the "professional standard" for its members. However, its effectiveness in serving the public's interests warrants examination.

This analysis identifies several aspects where the guidance may fall short in addressing the practical needs of both party wall surveyors and the involved parties. It also offers pragmatic suggestions for improvement.

Generalization Issues
Insufficient Specificity: The provided award template lacks detailed considerations pertinent to individual cases. This omission can lead to the neglect of critical project-specific issues, with some surveyors asserting that awards need not contain specific details.
Limited Flexibility: Surveyors, especially those less experienced, may struggle to apply the guidance to unique or complex situations due to its rigid structure.

Complexity Concerns
Use of Legal Jargon: The guidance frequently employs technical legal language, making it challenging for the general public to comprehend.
Lack of Detailed Content: Despite spanning 68 pages, the document often lacks the depth required to be genuinely useful, particularly for those new to party wall matters.
Omission of Practical Details: Key practical aspects of construction work, such as access conditions or protective measures for common tasks like chimney breast removal, are not addressed.

Dispute Resolution
Impartiality Issues: In contentious cases, parties may question the neutrality of surveyors. The guidance does not provide clear directives on maintaining impartiality or managing potential conflicts of interest.

Surveyor Fees
Ambiguity in Fee Reasonableness: The absence of guidelines on what constitutes reasonable fees leads to uncertainty in fee calculations. This gap can be exploited by some surveyors to charge excessive fees, eroding trust in the profession.

Cost Allocation
Unclear Cost Distribution: The guidance fails to delineate scenarios for cost allocation, creating ambiguity that can be manipulated by unscrupulous individuals.

Technological Integration
Outdated Templates: The award template's design hinders easy adoption, resulting in many surveyors continuing to use outdated versions, even six years post-introduction.
Lack of E-Signature Guidance: Despite the widespread use of electronic signatures, the guidance does not address their implementation.
Absence of Digital Communication Tools: The guidance overlooks the use of digital communication and collaboration tools, which are standard in many industries.

Accessibility for the Public
Limited Public Utility: The guidance's general nature renders it less useful for individuals without a background in party wall matters. This limitation may be intentional, as the document is industry-focused.

Structural Rigidity
One-Size-Fits-All Approach: The standardized template adopted by many surveyors does not accommodate the nuances of different situations.

Suggestions for Improvement
Customized Templates: Develop award templates with clearly headed sections and include clauses tailored to specific project types to enhance relevance and readability.
Simplify Language: Adopt clear, jargon-free language to make the guidance more accessible to the public and less experienced surveyors.
Enhance Practical Guidance: Incorporate detailed instructions on practical matters, such as access arrangements and protective measures.
Clarify Fee Structures: Provide explicit guidelines and examples to define reasonable surveyor fees.
Define Cost Allocation: Offer clear instructions and examples on how costs should be distributed among parties.
Modernize Templates: Provide editable award templates in accessible formats, such as Word documents, to facilitate ease of use.
Incorporate E-Signature Guidance: Include instructions on the use of electronic signatures to streamline processes.
Promote Digital Tools: Advise on the adoption of digital communication and collaboration tools, and consider developing such tools for members and their counterparts.
Develop Public-Friendly Materials: Create supplementary materials aimed at homeowners and small developers to help them understand their rights and obligations.
Establish a Clear Disciplinary Process: Implement an accessible, party wall-specific disciplinary process administered by knowledgeable staff to address breaches effectively.
Empower the Public: Educate the public to identify and challenge unprofessional conduct, enabling RICS to take swift and appropriate action, thereby maintaining public confidence in the organization.

Conclusion
Addressing these concerns can enhance the RICS Party Wall Guidance's utility and effectiveness, streamlining the party wall process and minimizing disputes.
​
Until such improvements are made, the guidance may not fully serve as an authoritative resource.

---

​Need help with a Party Wall Act issue? Contact Us for expert, no-obligation advice.

---