Email to Party Wall Surveyor Robin Ainsworth and his reply to his client in Red
From: XXXXXXXXXX
Sent: 30 October 2009 17:50
To: AinsworthSSL
Subject: Party Wall
Dear Robin,
further to our telephone conversation today. I confirm the Conservation Officer has confirmed to me that any works to XXXXXXXX will require Listed Building Consent and the XXXXX have been contacted by the Conservation Officer regarding this approval, but no application has yet been received. Could you please confirm the a copy of the proposed works has been provided to Building Control and whether all statutory approvals have been obtained or applied for.
No. That would be for the building owner to do, not the Party Wall Surveyors. The Act requires that all works in pursuance of the Act shall comply with the provisions of statutory requirements, however it is not a Party Wall Surveyor’s job to police any such requirements.
I am concerned that you mentioned I will be prosecuted under the Party Wall Act if I refuse access to my property for the bolting works to the upper floors of the gable wall to be carried out because I have been informed that I will also be prosecuted for allowing works to my listed building without first obtaining Listed Building Consent.
I did not say that. Please take care not to misquote me.
I told you that you were not “allowing” or “agreeing” anything – the building owner is exercising his statutory rights and this is imposed on you not agreed by you.
I then said that it is an offence under the Act to obstruct someone from doing something they are entitled to do under the Act and which would include allowing necessary access to your premises to carry out the awarded works.
HOWEVER - Clearly if the works they want to carry out do not comply with statutory requirements then they are not entitled to do them and therefore not entitle to access for that purpose.
I understand LBC will take eight weeks to obtain and I have only 14 day to appeal under the Party Walls Act. I am unsure whether LBC and Building Control approval requires to be granted under the award and whether I need to appeal if it has not been. Could you please advise regarding this matter.
No, LBC & BC approvals are governed by other legislation – therefore the absence of such approvals does not invalidate the Award – which requires that such other statutory requirements are complied with – the PWeA is not there to enforce other legislative requirements, nor vice-versa.
Could you also advise whether I am entitled to be reimbursed for legal representation regarding the Party Wall matters.
If you wish to take legal or other advice then that is a contractual issue between you and your consultant – and as advised to you before you appointed me, your costs in respect of my time-charges are your responsibility - only what is necessary and reasonable for determining the statutory dispute would be ‘reimbursed’ under the Act by making the building owner responsible for those costs. Except for the additional work defined within the Award the statutory dispute has been determined.
If you wish to challenge the Award then that is a civil issue and the legal or experts costs you incur in taking such action would usually be dealt with by the courts (often but not always on the basis that the loser pays the winners costs or some part of them). You should however seek a lawyer’s opinion for advice on the common law.
As you are aware my main concern is the removal of the support currently provided by the front and rear walls of XXXXXXXX and the possible wind suction effect on the gable wall. As my building has very few transverse beams into the gable wall and only the ground floor and attic beams where strapped to the gable this means the first and second floor beams are not fixed into the gable wall and if movement occurs there would be nothing to restrain them.
You should read the Cundall specification and method statement carefully. It has been prepared by a qualified Chartered Engineer and neither I nor Scott Harrington saw any reason to question the proposals as being inadequate. If you wish to seek independent opinion to prove that the specification provision are inadequate, substantiating an appeal against the Award, then you are free to do so, the costs of which may be recoverable in the civil action of appeal.
I would prefer the exposed gable wall was rendered to prevent water penetration and weathering of the exposed former internal walls as only lime mortar pointing is planned for this section of the wall and it was formerly an interior wall and the quality of bricks may not be adequate for external exposure.
As indicated in the Award, the extent of making good and necessary weathering will be determined by the appointed surveyors upon post demolition inspection when the wall will be visible. I will not pre-judge that inspection.
Regarding support to the front and rear walls could you please send me details of how this is to be ensured and any structural reports or calculations you may have been provided with by Scott so I can forward them to the Conservation Officer.
Your building was constructed as an independent building, albeit the adjacent flank walls of XX and XX are now bolted together. I see no reason, and one assumes neither does Cundall’s engineer, for the front and rear walls to be supported other than as specified in the method statement. There are therefore no calculations.
As discussed I have copied the Conservation Officer into this email to explain my concerns regarding possible prosecution under the PW Act and LBC, as I feel as though I am in a no win situation because I will be liable for prosecution if I allow the works without LBC and also prosecuted, as you mentioned under the PWA if I refuse.
Your statement is incorrect – see above. I trust you will also forward this response to the conservation officer so that he is fully informed.
Would it be possible for the third surveyor to be advised on the matter, as clarification regarding the adequacy of the bolting of the gable walls and loss of support provided by the front and rear walls of XXXXXX considering the lack of restraint afforded to the gable wall and beams is urgently required.
You can refer any matter in dispute to the third surveyor, however the appointed surveyors have by way of their Award already determined the dispute. The third surveyor cannot alter what has already been done as this is the sole prerogative of the courts by way of appeal against the Award – within 14 days.
Thank you for offering to provide digital copy of the award, specification and method statement for me to send to the Conservation Officer. I will send him a copy as soon as I receive it.
I did not ‘offer’ this – I complied with your verbal and written request.
Regards
XXXXX
I would be very worried if he was supposed to be representing me. The RICS should shut these people down.
ReplyDeleteJeffery
I think Mr Robin Ainsworth must have been working in th intrest of the other side and whilst taking his exhorbitant fees from the other.
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteI am a solicitor and would like to contact the client refered to, to see if I am able to act for them in relation to this matter.
Yours
WR
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI have also been crossed by this man, However, I have enormous resources and will use them all if necessary to bring him down
He needs bringing down as he gives Party Wall surveyors a bad name. A horrible little shit of a person.
ReplyDeleteHow interesting that each of the 'contributors' posting above chooses to remain anonymous rather than being open and honest enough to even try and validate their comments by identifying themselves.
ReplyDeleteIf any of them properly understood the Act they would know that the (one sided)correspondence posted constitutes sound and accurate professional advice.
Really? Well why when this flawed Party Wall inaccurate and dangerous matter went to appeal in the Civil Court was the appeal upheld and the matter the own out never to be implemented.
ReplyDeleteAre you the Party Wall Surveyor, Mr Robin Ainsworth in one of his numerous aliases? or another flawed inaccurate Party Wall Surveyor trying to justify others incompetence.
I assure you that I am both independent and real. My comments were made solely in relation to the sense and accuracy of the (patently selective)correspondence posted hereon, as regards the Party Wall etc Act 1996, and, having re-read those e-mails, I stand by what I said.
ReplyDeleteIf you have other, witheld, information which you intimate would shed a different light on the subject perhaps you should share it in order that those reading this dialogue might obtain a properly balanced view.
The documents are a full listing of the correspondence from the Party Wall surveyor Mr Robin Ainsworth and not as you incorrectly assume is a selection of emails. I suspect you are his apologist or colleauge as only an ill ill formed person like yourself could make so many inaccurate comments on a matter you obviously know very little about.
ReplyDeleteThe only other document not listed in the appeal judgement criticising the lack of a proper and accurate survey of the buildings in question and mentions the understating of the building dimensions including the the width and hieght of the gable walls and floor area calaculations would have resulted in the collapse or serious damage of both properties had both these incompetent Party Wall surveyors proceeded with their flawed scheme. You can no doubt discuss this matter further with your colleague and fellow Party Wall surveyor. It is people like you that create the need for a redrafting of the Party Wall legislation.