Typical Causes of Damage from Party Wall Works

Owners living next door to building works pay more attention to the condition of their property and may assume that those works are the cause of any cracks they find. That’s why it is so important to take a record of the condition prior to works commencing. If surveyors are appointed, they will prepare a schedule of condition but, even if an adjoining owner consents, it’s still something that should be put in place.

In this post I’ll be looking at the types of damage typically caused by works falling within the scope of the party wall act but, first, a word of warning. Buildings move and crack all the time due to thermal changes or shrinkage to the sub-soil so it cannot be assumed that all changes are related to neighbouring works; it may just be a continuation of something that was already evident when the schedule was recorded. There can be several months between the schedule of condition being recorded and the completion of works which is adequate time for a property to move without any contribution from external factors.

There are 3 typical causes of damage by adjacent building works:

1. Vibration such as that caused by cutting a chimney breast away from a party wall. Damage will generally be cosmetic, such as hairline cracks to plaster surfaces.
2. Impact such as that caused by cutting a pocket in to a party wall to support a beam as part of a loft conversion. It’s quite common for a heavy-handed builder to dislodge a brick on the opposite side of the wall. As with vibration, impact damage will not normally have any structural implications.
3. Removal of support provided by the ground or an adjoining building. e.g. underpinning a party wall or demolishing one half of a pair of semi-detached houses. This is the most serious type of damage as it may be progressive.

It’s a good idea to keep these causes in mind when trying to determine the cause of damage and whether there is a logical link to neighbouring works.

Let’s take an example, a door in the adjoining owner’s property is catching on the frame but, on inspection, it’s confirmed that the hinges have not been loosened by vibration. Unless there is cracking to the surfaces around the opening, the logical conclusion is that there has been some thermal movement, and the issue is unrelated to the neighbouring works.

If damage is claimed to a part of the property that is remote from the works, and was not therefore scheduled, you would expect there to be a pattern of damage to follow. It’s very unlikely that an area remote from the works could be damaged with no impact to those surfaces immediately adjacent.

As well as following the trail, the damage itself may provide some clues as to the cause. A recent crack to plaster will have sharp edges and be clean – if the daylight is insufficient to see inside the crack a torch should be used. Cracks that have formed gradually over an extended period of time will be darker and less distinct.

An adjoining sooner would be wise to spend some time confirming the most likely cause of a crack before making a claim as, unlike with the initial dispute resolution procedure, costs can be awarded against either owner and will generally follow the decision. If surveyors have been appointed, and the party wall award made provision for the adjoining owner’s surveyor to revisit upon completion of the works, they can provide an informal opinion on the cause of any damage highlighted.

This is part of a short series of posts relating to claims under the Act.

If you live in the Cambridgeshire or north Essex area and require advice on a party wall matter you’re welcome to contact us on 01799 542532 or via email.