As published in Bisnow on 3 September 2025.
The owner of a large apartment in Belgravia, London, stuck about 500 Post-it notes on their ceilings and walls. Each one marked the location of a crack that had supposedly appeared since renovations began in an apartment two floors above.
The claim for repairs looked set to reach into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. It may even have extended to temporarily rehousing valuable art works or alternative accommodation costs.
However, while this flat was not directly affected by party wall works, GIA Surveyors had taken more than 800 photos when creating a schedule of condition that covered the entire flat prior to commencement of the work. The team’s thoroughness meant that all but one of the supposed claims were disregarded.
Such an example is becoming increasingly common, GIA Director David Tedder said. Building contracts are becoming more complex, involving multiple contractors, and property owners are more aware of their rights, all of which increases the risk of disputes with adjoining owners.
“More than ever, developers must be rigorous from the beginning,” Tedder said. “Substandard surveys and advice will leave them in a very tricky position. But with the right preparation — whether it’s to develop one apartment or a 16-storey commercial building — developers, and indeed contractors, can safeguard themselves.”
Taking the time to prepare a thorough schedule of condition reduces the risk of the owners of adjoining properties making a successful claim for damage, Tedder said. But while GIA carries out extensive surveys for clients, some firms are less thorough, he said, which leaves a developer in a worse position than if they had no schedule at all.
“When done correctly it is ammunition for a developer to use to protect themselves,” he said. “But if you have had a professional go around who has missed elements, then the risk is that the finger of guilt points to the developer.”
As well as creating schedules of condition as part of Party Wall Award agreements, GIA works with developers and contractors who are looking to protect themselves in relation to damage claims at adjoining properties falling outside of party wall notice serving distances.
In particular, where proposals involve deep basement excavation, the risks of damage occurring can go beyond Party Wall Act applications.
While a developer will ask engineers to carry out an impact assessment and ground movement analysis, it’s not uncommon for design teams to unwittingly overlook the risks of damage from such movement where the affected properties fall outside of the Party Wall Act zone of up to six metres horizontally, Tedder said.
“Responsible developers will act on this knowledge, but many aren’t properly advised,” he said. “This could leave a developer in a difficult situation where, as part of their own analyses, they have recorded a prediction of ground movement occurring to adjoining buildings, but have no prior condition record to defend potentially spurious claims of damage that may be alleged to have arisen from that ground movement.”
When this is the case, a developer runs a considerable risk of being unable to defend themselves in disputes that, in wealthy areas of London in particular, could lead to court and significant claims for damage in common law, Tedder said.
Another key moment in a project where disputes can arise over adjoining property damage claims is during phased construction, he said.
Increasingly, contracts are being split, with works being carried out under a separate demolition & enabling works contract, prior to a main contractor taking over in the construction phase. Problems can arise when damage is caused to an adjoining property but it is not clear which contractor is responsible, Tedder said.
“Adjoining owners are under no obligation to make a damage claim immediately, so claims can be made long after handover occurring between contractors, even after practical completion,” he said. “Ultimately, under the Party Wall Act the developer bears the overall responsibility for making good damage, regardless of whether they can recover the cost of this from one of their contractors.”
GIA recommends that where works are phased, it can be beneficial for condition surveys to be checked and any changes in condition recorded at the point at which a new contractor comes in.
GIA’s support for clients’ neighbourly matters extends to boundary plotting using a geo referenced topographical survey drawing, to more clearly define the perimeter of a site. Most boundaries are subject to the general boundaries rule which brings into question the physical features surrounding a site, something not necessarily considered in the Land Registry title plan, Tedder said.
“It is well known that most Land Registry title plans, as stated in their own caveats, are not intended to show the exact boundary position and can be subject to distortions in scale,” he said. “So it can be risky to rely on these, particularly when building tight to the boundary. Our plots give more certainty to architects and developers, avoiding potential neighbourly disputes.”
Other matters where GIA supports clients include crane oversailling and the position of scaffolding on adjoining owners’ land.
Increasingly frequently, clients are looking for advice on whether they are able to access adjoining land for development purposes, Tedder said. GIA can report on what Party Wall Act access rights exist at an early stage so that the risks associated are properly considered.
If rights don’t exist, developers need to ask an adjoining owner for permission to access their land under a licence, which the owner can refuse. More often, the adjoining owner can use their ability to refuse it as a way to demand financial consideration, which can be extremely costly and become a huge setback, he said.
“This is just one high risk facing developers, as more property owners are aware of their rights today than a decade ago, as indeed are the party wall surveyors advising them,” he said. “It is becoming all the more important that developers consider such risks early on in the process so they can do something about it when they still can.”