Putting Together a Claim for Damage from Party Wall Works

Where an adjoining owner suffers damage as a result of works notified under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 they will generally have a choice between allowing the building owner or, in reality, the building owner’s contractor to make good and receiving compensation. In my experience, adjoining owners prefer to receive a payment then let the contractor who caused the damage make it good.

Compensation

Where the building owner’s obligation is to compensate rather than to make good (I covered the difference in a previous post) the measure will generally be the reasonable costs of making good but in some circumstances, it may be appropriate for the damages to be assessed as the diminution in the market value of the adjoining property resulting from the damage. Those circumstances include:

• Where the adjoining owner sells or intends to sell the property before undertaking the repairs.
• Where the cost of the repair will greatly exceed the diminution in the market value of the adjoining property.
• Where the damage does not hasten the need for a surface or room to be made good and decorated (one more crack when there are already many).

Estimates

It will strengthen the adjoining owner’s case if their claim is supported by estimates but it’s not mandatory. Estimates are time consuming for an adjoining owner to gather so it may not be necessary for there to be a minimum of 3, as traditionally required, where the works are not substantial. The adjoining owner should seek to establish the market rate for the repair rather than the lowest cost which limits the amount of time an adjoining owner is expected to spend gathering quotes. If a dispute is confirmed, the surveyors can arrange further estimates if necessary and include the time taken in their costs.

Betterment

If remedying a defect necessarily involves betterment, the remedy must nonetheless be paid for or carried out by the building owner, and that is simply the adjoining owner’s good fortune (see Harbutt’s Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd (1970)). The adjoining owner is entitled to a consistency of appearance after the repair and redecoration. So, if following decoration of the affected wall, an objective observer would be able to see a difference between that wall and the other walls in the room, then all the walls will need to be decorated (but not necessarily the woodwork).

The building owner is not required to make good damage or imperfections to the same wall or ceiling that are unrelated to their works as that would be unnecessary betterment. Where an existing crack has got slightly worse or, a wall that already had several cracks now has one or two more, a contribution towards future decorating costs is usually considered fair. However, where the need to redecorate has been hastened by the damage, the claim should be equivalent to the cost of putting the adjoining owners’ property back into the condition it was prior to the works.

Loss of amenity

Where damage to an adjoining property, or the repair of that damage, materially affects its amenity, such as the temporary loss of a room, compensation may be claimed for that loss of amenity for the duration.

If the adjoining owner has to move out of their property to facilitate the repair works, the cost of the alternative accommodation and the reasonable costs of moving out, storing their possessions and then moving back into the adjoining property may be recoverable but it depends on scale of damage/remedial works. A good test to apply – if the works were being carried out by the adjoining owner, would they move out?

Once the full details of the claim have been assembled, it should be presented to the building owner for consideration.

In the next part of this short series of posts I’ll look at what happens when the building owner disputes the claim.

If you live in the Cambridgeshire of north Essex area and require advice on a party wall matter, you are welcome to contact the author of this post on 01799 543532 or via email.